The Neglected Facts of Science

DEWEY B. LARSON
REACTIONS and REVIEWS

After a few pages, you will see that there is obviously very much that is wrong with the
standard Big Picturethe Big Bang, quasars, et al. Larson ticks off anomalies and unfounded
speculations one after the other. For example, all stars regardless of age possess some heavy
elements, but theory does not account for all of them. Whence the X-ray background of the
universe? Is the General Theory of Relativity viable? After finishing this book, you may wonder
if there is any firm ground left for the astronomer to stand upon.
Science Frontiers
A Review by Henry A. Hof

Any student of Velikovsky, as yet unfamiliar with Dewey B. Larson, might wonder from the title
of this book if it contains a compendium of facts presented by Velikovsky and his supporters that
have been neglected by the scientific establishment. It is certainly a book of facts neglected by
the establishment, but no book of 131 pages could present that many facts. Instead, it is a book of
facts, evident from Larsons theory of the physical universe, that is certainly of interest to
interdisciplinarians and may be of great importance to Velikovskians.
Velikovsky was raised and educated in Europe, while Larson is pure Americana. He was born on
the plains of North Dakota in 1898 and spent his early years in Idaho. After an interruption for
World War I in which he served as a 2nd Lieutenant in the Coast Artillery, he pursued an
engineering degree from Oregon State University. After graduating in 1922, he was licensed by
the State of Oregon as a mechanical engineer.
Although Larson and Velikovsky are alike in their insatiable curiosity and their drive to
understand causal forces, their approches differ drastically. Velikovsky ventured into ancient
history and astronomy from his research in psychoanalysis and developed an electromagnetic
theory of the solar system, applicable to the Universe. Larson, on the other hand, explored
theoretical physics from his background in mechanics and developed his physical theory based
on motion.
To even begin the task of creating his own physical theory, Larson had to become familiar with
prevalent theories. He is not an academian nor a researcher of the Establishment. In the preface
of one of his earlier books, Nothing But Motion (1974), he described himself as an uncommitted

investigator. Such an investigator is free of the economic politics of establishment science.

Larson is an amateur in this sense only. In the course of his research, he has noted observations
and theoretical facts deduced in his theory that have been and continue to be neglected by the
professionals; hence this his latest book.
At the heart of his theory and the first concept he presents to the reader is what he calls scalar
motion. A scalar is the magnitude of a vector. In Larsons theory it is a motion itself. The concept
is difficult to convey and Neglected Facts is written to help explain, as well as to point out
evidence from astronomy, that scalar motion and its variety of forms exist.
His universe of scalar motion, called the Reciprocal System of Theory, is algebraic and 3D
Euclidean, making it a complex entity to visualize. It has many surprises. Motion, not matter, not
energy, not charge, is the basic entity that occurs in discrete units. The concept of objects moving
and the interactions of these objects inside a container (the science of kinematics) seems
intuitively obvious, as does the idea that all effects must have their causes within the container.
Larson claims these ideas are wrong. In his theory there is no container for objects to move
around in. To him the container is a local imperception. He conceives of causes outside this
subjective container of our holocentric viewpoint, producing effects inside the container.
This exterior causal zone he refers to as the inverse or cosmic sector of the universe (where
antimatter exists).
There is what Larson refers to as distributed scalar motion. He introduces this idea in his first
chapter Fundamentals and refers to a variety of its possible forms throughout the text. Any
such motion : can have either an inward or an outward direction, yet has no pinpointable
reference frame. When a reference frame is assigned, an object is created relative to that
reference frame. And the object can be observed to follow any path.
This property of distributed scalar motion is one neglected fact. Throughout the text he labels
observations of or deductions about scalar motion as either neglected, disregarded, or
unrecognized facts. It would have been a great help to the reader if Larson had included a table
of these facts somewhere. With this table the reader could locate appropriate pages and gain a
clearer understanding of these facts.
Larson does say that some facts have much more significant consequences than others. These he
calls crucial facts. The existence of distributed scalar motion is such a fact. When the
disregarded fact that every fundamental force must originate from a fundamental motion is
considered, distributed scalar motion is found to explain the fundamental forces. It is found to
explain electric charge and mass (inertial and gravitational).
In Chapter 2 he mentions that distributed scalar motions can have up to three dimensions, only
one of which can be seen at any time from a local reference frame. That one is seen in three

dimensions locally. These concepts do not appear to be deduceable from what hes presented
in Neglected Facts but instead appear to come out of nowhere. Unfortunately, it gives the reader
the feeling that Larson is inventing bizarre devices - for his own theory - just like the ones he
says others have invented to get Relativity theory to work: These concepts concerning distributed
scalar motion are introduced in his previous books; and through the use of these
multidimensional distributed scalar motions, Larson is able to unify electricity, magnetism, and
gravity. If the motion is one dimensional, it is electric motion; two dimensional, it is magnetic;
and three dimensional, gravitational.
Velikovskians will find his discussions of gravity interesting. Larson makes no mention of
Velikovskys theory that gravitation is an electromagnetic phenomenon. To Velikovsky there is
no need for gravity to act instantaneously or to be unique. Larson, on the other hand, claims that
it is a unique force derivable directly from motion, and that it does act instantaneously (a
neglected fact). But Larsons point of view may be true only if gravitation is indeed the
phenomenon being observed. Should local manifestations that are called gravitation prove to be
electromagnetic phenomena, it may mean that Larsons concept of gravitation needs to be
reassessed.
Larson also tackles the idea of an absolute speed limit. He is willing to say that the absolute limit
of the speed of light is erroneous. His limiting value of the total scalar speed of an object is 3c,
not c.
Time is not immune to new interpretation either. In the Reciprocal System, time can have three
independent dimensions (an unrecognized fact). And space can move. These phenomena are
the results of Larsons postulation that space and time have meaning only in the motion equation.
There is motion and direction in time, but not time travel.
The reader should be prepared for some mind-wrenching mental gymnastics that involve the
fundamental aspects of Newtonian mechanics and its prodigy. The book is not easy to read. But
doing so gives a healthy appreciation of the fundamental doubts many of the celestial minds of
physics have toward mechanics, principally, and electromagnetics to a much lesser degree.
Larson has included a good many sentences on the flaws of Relativity. He demonstrates that the
elevation of the theory of Relativity above physical facts has produced the dangerous situation of
discrediting the value of objective truth. His name can be added to the long list of scientists and
mathematicians who have been pointing out again and again what is wrong with Einsteins
Theory of Relativity, yet it seems to fall on deaf ears.
The size of objects discussedafter he explains electrictricity, magnetism, and gravity - expands
to include white dwarfs, quasars (as reported in his Quasars and Pulsars published in 1971), and
supernovae. Ultimately, he discusses the current cosmological theories and shows how his
theory, by attending to those facts neglected by others, does not need a Big Bang. The end result

of his cosmological discussion is a cyclic or Steady State universe of motion in which there is a
dynamic equilibrium between the cosmic sector and the material sector (where we are).
Of the observational facts Larson mentions in Neglected Facts none are laboratory reproducible.
There is an inherent danger, then, in claiming that astronomically observable facts, not laboratory
producible, show the existence of, or are the real effects named in, a theory. The danger lies in
the unknown limitations that allow reproducibility of the phenomena being observed. Until these
limitations are known, any theory that provides a description, which reasonably matches the
observational facts, may be correct. It is for this very reason, that Larsons theory of motion
needs to be considered. He does present some laboratory results in his books The Structure of the
Physical Universe (1959) and The Case Against Nuclear Atom (1963).
Neglected Facts is an informative, well-organized book that flows steadily. After each section of
presenting theoretical facts, Larson then presents physical and astronomical observations that
may indeed represent the phenomena of his theory.
His efforts provide much food for thought.

Answer by D. B. Larson
Scalar Motion and Scalar Dimensions

In his review of The Neglected Facts of Science (KRONOS IX:2, pp. 70-73), Henry A. Hoff
suggests that the two unobservable scalar dimensions are introduced ad hoc. Actually, they are
necessary consequences of the existence of scalar motion, which, as I have shown, is established
by observation. In a three-dimensional universe there are obviously three dimensions of that
motion. That is what the concept of three-dimensionality means.
Hoffs problem in this case is the same as that of many others. They take it for granted that they
know what the word dimension means, but they are thinking of geometric dimensions. The
dimensions of scalar motion are purely mathematical, not geometric. The whole point of my
discussion in Chapter 2 of The Neglected Facts of Science is that only one of the three scalar
(mathematical) dimensions can be represented in the three spatial (geometric) dimensions of the
conventional reference system. The other two scalar dimensions of motion are unobservable.

Dewey B. Larson, Portland, Oregon

Henry A. Hof replies:

In the preface to The Neglected Facts of Science, Dewey B. Larson explains that his book is
purely factual rather than purely theoretical, which was the case in his earlier books on motion.
As such he is not obliged to demonstrate where concepts such as multi- dimensional scalar
motion come from. To the reader working through Chapter 2, it is not intuitively obvious why
any one of the three dimensions of scalar motion can have three local reference frame, Euclidean
dimensions whenever a fixed reference frame is in use. A footnote to the appropriate page
of Nothing But Motion would have sufficed.
Larson has written Neglected Facts more from his point of view than from the readers. The
reader looks through conventional geometric eyes and tries to envision what Larson is talking
about. To the geometrician, the idea of multi-dimensional scalar motion seems ad hoc because
scalar motion seems ad hoc. That most galaxies demonstrate a red shift does not prove either
Larsons contention that scalar motion exists, that these galaxies are all receding or that we are
observing tired light because of the great distances involved. Astronomical observations cannot
establish any theoretical concept; however, theoretical concepts can be used to explain
astronomical observations and even predict new phenomena so as to lend credibility to the
theory.
The point Larson makes in his letter that the dimensions of scalar motion are purely
mathematical is an important one. By theorizing that scalar motions have a potential of nine
degrees of freedom (three scalar dimensions) from which, for any conventional physical
reference frame, any three (one scalar dimension) can be operating, he allows ample
mathematical freedom to describe observations recorded in the conventional physical frame. This
added mathematical freedom coupled to a commutative algebra has apparently allowed him to
unify the previously nonunifiable fields or forces of physics.
Preface

Since many readers are aware that most of my previous publications have been
devoted to presenting a new general physical theory, and discussing various aspects
thereof, I should explain that this present work is totally independent of that theory. It
simply fills a vacuum in existing science, identifying a number of physical facts that
have been overlooked by previous investigators, together with other facts that are
known, but are disregarded because they do not fit into the current structure of
physical theory. When their consequences are fully developed, these hitherto
neglected facts clarify many physical issues and provide the answers for a number of
previously unsolved fundamental problems. The work should therefore be of interest
to all who are concerned with the foundations of physical science, irrespective of

whether or not they are inclined to spend the time and effort that are required to
become familiar with a new theoretical development.
The plan of this work is the direct opposite of that of my previous books. In those
publications, the presentation was purely theoretical. A set of postulates defining a
universe of motion was formulated, and the necessary consequences of those
postulates were then developed by logical and mathematical processes, without
introducing anything from any other source. All of the conclusions reached in that
development are independent of experience, and no use is made of the results of
observation and measurement, except in comparisons with the theoretical results to
show agreement between the two. This present work, on the other hand, is purely
factual. It deals entirely with observable facts, and the necessary consequences of
those facts, without introducing any theoretical ideas or concepts. It therefore has
essentially the same status as a report of a series of experimental discoveries.
However, even though the contents of this volume are entirely factualthat is, limited
to observed facts and the logical or mathematical consequences thereofand are
independent of the theory of a universe of motion that I have developed, they are, in a
sense, products of that development, inasmuch as the results of the theoretical study
provided the clues that enabled recognition of the previously neglected physical facts.
Some comments about the theoretical development should therefore be appropriate.
For more than forty years I have been investigating the consequences that necessarily
follow if we make the assumption that the universe in which we live is a universe of
motion: one in which the basic entities are units of motion rather than units of matter.
This is by no means a new idea. It has long been recognized that the discovery that
matter can be transformed into non-matter, and vice versa, by appropriate processes,
cuts the ground out from under the currently accepted concept of a universe of matter,
in which the basic entities are assumed to be elementary units of matter existing in a
framework provided by space and time. Over several centuries, a great deal of time
and effort has been put into attempts to find an acceptable substitute for this now
untenable concept. The only candidates thus far located that appear to warrant serious
consideration are energy and motion. Energy is the current favorite, but as Werner
Heisenberg, one of the principal supporters of this possibility, conceded, there is little
likelihood that a workable theory can be constructed on this basis. The motion
alternative has been extensively studied by many scientists and philosophers,

including such prominent figures as Descartes, Eddington and Hobbes, but they have
been no more successful than Heisenberg and his energy school of thought.
In spite of the uniform lack of success thus far, this is a task that cannot be abandoned,
as we certainly cannot be satisfied to continue indefinitely with a basic concept that
we know is erroneous. As it happens, I have been able to put the motion concept on a
totally new footing by postulating that the universe is composed entirely of motion.
On the basis of this concept, I have been able to formulate a set of postulates, the
consequences of which constitute a general physical theory, one in which all
conclusions in all physical areas are derived from the same set of premises.
A change in the base of the system naturally necessitates many modifications of the
details of physical theory. However, the amount of change that is required is not
nearly as great as might appear on first consideration, because the new development
calls for very little change in the mathematics of present-day theory. The changes are
mainly in the interpretation of the mathematics, in our understanding of what the
mathematics mean. Since the case in favor of the currently accepted theories is
primarilyoften entirelymathematical, there is little that can be said, in most cases, in
favor of current theory that is not equally applicable to the mathematically equivalent
conclusions that I have reached. The substantial advantages of a fully integrated
general physical theory are thus attained without any violent disruption of the
mathematical fabric of the physics of familiar phenomena. All that is necessary in
most instances is some alteration in the significance attributed to the mathematical
relations, and a corresponding modification of the language that is utilized. These new
interpretations, integral parts of a consistent, fully integrated general theory, can then
be extended to a resolution of the problems that are currently being encountered in the
far-out regions.
When the true situation is more widely understood, it is probable that more
individuals will be willing to spend the time and effort that are required in order to
understand the new development. In the meantime, however, there are a number of
places where the investigations in connection with the development of the new theory
have disclosed some significant, and hitherto overlooked, physical facts that are
independent of the physical theory in whose context they are viewed. These items
stand on their own foundations, and they can be incorporated into physical thought
without regard to the modifications that I am proposing in the general structure of
physical theory.

The most important of these advances in physical understanding is the clarification of

the nature and properties of scalar motion. The existence of this type of motion, which
has magnitude only and no inherent direction, is undeniable, since we can observe it,
but it has never previously been critically examined, probably because on casual
consideration it does not appear to have any significant impact on physical activity.
The results of my investigation indicate that this superficial impression is mistaken,
and that scalar motion is, in fact, one of the primary physical phenomena. As will be
demonstrated in the pages of this volume, clarification of the nature and properties of
this type of motion opens the door to a greatly improved understanding of many
aspects of the physical universe, including its large-scale structure and behavior.
Copyright 1982
by Dewey B. Larson
All rights reserved

CHAPTER 1
Fundamentals

The common analogy likens the galaxies to spots on the surface of a balloon that is being
inflated. As the rubber stretches, all the spots move away from each other.
This statement, taken from a current astronomical text, can be found in almost any explanation of
the recession of the distant galaxies, either in essentially these same words, or in terms of a
threedimensional analog, such as the one used by Fred Hoyle, in which he compares the galaxies
to raisins in a puddingexpanding in the oven. It testifies to the general recogniLion of the fact
that the kind of motion typified by the movement of spots on the surface of an expanding balloon
is, in some way, different from ordinary motion. This difference has not received any intensive
scrutiny in physical thought, and is not given any attention in the textbooks. Indeed, the
definition of motion is customarily expressed in terms that specifically exclude the kind of
motion that we observe on the balloon surface. The results of the investigation reported in this
present work indicate, however, that this special type of motion plays a significant part in many
physical phenomena, and that a thorough knowledge of its nature and properties is essential for a
full understanding of those phenomena.
As a first step in this direction, a critical analysis of the expanding balloon situation is in order. If
the motion of the spots is examined in isolation, without placing the balloon in a reference
system, or introducing a reference system into Lhe balloon, which can easily be done
conceptually, or if a similar mental picture of the receding galaxies is constructed, there is no
way by which the motion of any one spot, or of any one galaxy, can be distinguished from that of
any other. The only identifiable change that is taking place is a continuous and uniform increase
in the magnitude of the distances between spots, or between galaxies. All spots and all galaxies

are moving outward at a constant speed, but they are moving outward in all directions, which
means that the motions have no specific directions. Thus the only property of this type of motion
is a positive speed magnitude. Such a motion is, by definition, scalar.
With a little further exercise of the imagination, we can make the analogy with the galaxies
somewhat closer by replacing the balloon with an expanding three-dimensional object, perhaps
some kind of a transparent expanding plastic ball, with visible spots scattered throughout its
volume. Here, again, the motion of all spots is simply outward, and unless a reference system is
arbitrarily introduced to provide directions, the only property of the motion is its positive
(outward) magnitude.
This view of the expanding plastic ball that we derive by mentally abstracting the ball from the
local environment, and considering it in isolation, is exactly the same as the view that we get
from observation of the distant galaxies. The only thing that we know about the motions of these
galaxies is that they are receding from our own galaxy, and presumably from all others, at speeds
that increase in direct proportion to the distance, just as the relative speeds of the spots in the
interior of the expanding plastic ball obviously do. What we observe, then is a scalar motion of
the galaxies, a motion that has no property other than a positive magnitude.
The currently popular view is that the galactic recession results from a gigantic explosion in
which the entire contents of the universe were thrown out into space at the speeds now observed.
The radially outward motion in all directions is explained as the result of velocity differentials.
On this basis, the galaxies in one direction are receding because they are moving faster than the
galaxy from which we are observing them. In the opposite direction, the galaxies are presumed
to be slower than ours, and we are therefore moving away from them. There is no way by which
this kind of a distribution of motions, if it exists, can be distinguished from motion of the type
illustrated by the spots in the expanding plastic ball. Regardless of its origin, motion of this kind
has no inherent direction. Each identifiable point, or object, is simply moving directly away from
all others. Any further characteristics that may be attributed to those motions to fit a theory or
explanation of their origin are nof relevant to the existing physical situation.
The type of motion with which we are familiar in everyday life is vectorial. This is motion
relative to a fixed reference system. Like scalar motion, it has a magnitude, but it also has a
direction in the reference system, and the effect of the motion depends on this direction, as well
as on the magnitude of the motion. The difference between the two types of motion can be
brought out clearly by consideration of a simple example. Let us assume that a moving point X is
located between two points Y and Z on the straight linejoining the two points. lf the motion of X
is vectorial, and in the direction XY, then the distance XY decreases and the distance XZ
inereases. But if the motion of X is scalar, as on the surface of the expanding balloon, or in the
expanding plastic ball, both XY and XZ increase.

The scalar motions readily accessible to observation are not isolated in the manner of those that
we have been considering, but are physically connected to the spatial reference system. This
phvsical coupling supplies the vectorial directions (directions relative to the reference system)
that the motions themselves do not possess. The entity that actually enters into physical
phenomena is not the scalar motion alone, but this motion plus the coupling to the reference
system. In the condition in which it is physically observed, the balloon or plastic ball is
connected to a reference system by placing it in that system in such a manner that some point X
of the expanding object coincides with a specific point A in the reference system, the reference
point, as we will call it, and the outward motion XY of a spot Y coincides with a vectorial
direction AB.
The universe as a whole cannot be placed in a reference system, but the same result can be
achieved by introducing a system of axes into the universe. The origin of these axes is then the
reference point. The Big Bang theory of the origin of the galactie recession introduces a
conceptual reference point of this kind, the location of the hypothetical explosion, but leaves the
vectorial directions undefined. Thus, aside from being incomplete, and conceptual rather than
physical, this Big Bang hypothesis does the same thing as the placement of the balloon in a
position in the reference system. It connects a scalar motion with a reference system.
A scalar motion physically coupled to a reference system in this manner may act in essentially
the same way as a vectorial motion, in which case it is not currently distinguished from vectorial
motion. Alternatively, it may have some quite different characteristics. Current science then does
not recognize it as a motion. For an understanding of these hitherto unrecognized types of scalar
motions, we will need to examine some of the fundamental facts that are involved.
These pertinent facts are not difficult to ascertain. They have hitherto remained unidentifief not
because they are hidden orelusive, but because no one has looked for them. This, in turn, has
been due to the lack of any clear indication that they might have a significant impact on physical
understanding. After all, expanding balloons and plastic balls play no major part in physical
activity. It is often asserted that issues in science are investigated for the same reason that men
climb mountains just because they are there to be climbed but small mountains get scant
attention, and seemingly insignificant physical phenomena generally receive the same casual
treatment. An attitude of benign neglect is all the more likely to prevail where, as in this instance,
some readjustment of thinking is necessary before the existing observational situation can be
seen in its true light.
The resemblance between the motion of the receding galaxies and the motion of spots on an
expanding balloon might have stimulated some interest in exploration of the nature and
properties of scalar motion had it not been for the invention of the Big Bang theory, which
seemed to provide an explanation of sorts for the galactic recession in terms of vectorial motion,
although, as can now be seen, the recession is actually a scalar motion that is assigned a

reference point by the theory. The explosion hypothesis is not available to the supporters of the
rival Steady State theory, but they have neverdeveloped thedetails of how the recession is
supposed to be produced in their theory, and the need for an explanation of the special
characteristics of the motion of the galaxies in the context of that theory has gone unrecognized.
The event that has finally focused the attention of an investigator on the scalar motion issue, and
has prompted a detailed study of this type of motion, is the development of the theory ofa
universe of motion. In this theory scalar motion plays a very significant part, and it duickly
became evident that a full understanding of its nature and properties was essential to the
theoretical development. This supplied the incentive for the investigation for which there had
previously seemed to be no adequate reason. It should be understood, however, that the
presentation in this volume stands on its own factual foundations, and is entirely independent of
the theory that stimulated the investigation that produced the results now being described.
Although a scalar motion has no vectorial direction of its own, the scalar magnitude may be
either positive or negative. The motion therefore has what we may call a scalar direction. This
term may appear to be self-contradictory, inasmuch as the word scalar indicates a cluantity that
has magnitude only, without inherent direction. But we do not ordinarily deal with scalar motion
as such; we deal with its representation in the spatial reference system, and that representation is
necessarily directional.
If the scalar magnitude of a motion is positive, the spatial result of the motion is that the distance
from object A to object B increases with time; that is, the scalar motion is outward. Conversely, a
negative scalar motion is inward, as seen in the reference system. The magnitude is positive or
negative; the resulting scalar direction is outward or inward. A simple scalar motion AB is
inherently nothing more than a change in the magnitude of the distance between A and B per unit
of elapsed time, but it is equivalent in most respects to a one-dimensional vectorial motion, and it
can be represented in a fixed spatial reference system of the conventional type in the same
manner as the corresponding vectorial motion, with a direction in the reference system, a
vectorial direction, that is determined by the nature of the coupling to the reference system. Ifhe
vectorial direction, a property of the coupling, is independent of the scalar direction, a property
of the scalar motion. Outward from point A, for example, may take any vectorial direction. Some
conseduences of this independence of the directions will be discussed later.
Applying these general principles to the balloon example, we find that when the expanding
balloon is placed in a reference system - on the tloor of a room, for example the motion of
each spot acquires a vectorial direction. This direction is totally dependent on the placement. lf
point X is placed on point A of the tloor, and point Y is placed to coincide with some point B in
the reference system at time t, then the motion XY has the diretion AB. If the correlation takes
place in some other way that is, if some point Z on the balloon surface is placed on point A, or
if point Y coincides with some point C at time t - then all directions on the balloon surface,
including the direction of the motion XY, are altered.

The direction AB is not inconsequential. It has an actual physical significance. For instance, the
motion terminates if there is an immovable obstacle somewhere along the line AB. But this
direction AB is a property of the physical coupling between the balloon and the reference system,
not a property of the motion, and it can be altered without any effect on the motion itself. For
instance, the expanding balloon can be moved. The only inherent property of the scalar motion of
any one spot, its scalar magnitude ( including its scalar direction) can be correctly represented in
the reference system in any vectorial direction.
These facts are well understood. But it was not recognized, prior to the investigation whose
results are being presented in this work, that the ability of a scalar motion to take anv direction in
the context of a fixed spatial reference system is not limited to a constant direction.A
discontinuous or non-uniform change of direction could be maintained only by repeated
application offexternal forces, but once it is initiated, a continuous and uniform change of
direction, such as that produced by rotation of the representation in the reference system, is just
as permanent as a constant direction.
Aristotle and his contemporaries argued that a change of position of an object could be
accomplished only by the application of some outside influence, and they provided an assortment
of angels and demons for this purpose in formulating their physical theories. A universe
constructed on the mechanics of Aristotle, says Butterfield, was a universe in which unseen
hands had to be in constant operation, and sublime Intelligences had to roll the planetary spheres
around.1 By this time it is well understood that these conclusions of the Greek thinkers are
erroneous, and that a continuous uniform change of position is just as fundamental and just as
permanent as a fixed position. The essential requirement is the continuity. This principle is
edually as applicable to direction as to position. Here, too, the essential requirement is simply
continuity.
To illustrate a rotational change of direction of the representation of a scalar motion in a
reference system, let us place the expanding balloon in the position previously defined in which
point X rests on point A of the floor, and point Y coincides with point B of the reference system
at time t. Then let us turn the balloon around point X (and A). Instead of continuing in the
constant direction AB, the line XY representing the scalar magnitude now takes successive
directions AC, AD, AE, etc., where C, D, and E, are points on the circumference of a circle
centered on the axis passing through A. The total magnitude of the change of position, the
distance moved by point Y outward from X in a given time interval, remains the same, but it has
been distributed over all directions in the plane of rotation, instead of being confined to the one
direction AB. The motion is unchanged; it still has the same positive magnitude, and no other
property. But the representation of that magnitude in the reference system has been rotated. A
further rotation of the original plane will distribute the representation in all directions.

In this illustration, the scalar motion XY of the balloon appears in the reference system as a
distributed series of motions AB, AC, AD, etc. The common point is A; that is, by placing point
X of the balloon on point A of the floor we have made A the reference point for the
representation of the scalar motion XY in the fixed reference system. It can easily be seen that
such a reference point is essential to the representation. We can therefore generalize this
requirement, and say that in order to represent a scalar motion in a spatial coordinate system, it is
necessary to give the motion, by means of a physical coupling to the reference system, both a
reference point and a vectorial direction (which can be either constant or changing continuously
and uniformly).
The significance of the reference point is that while this point is actually moving in the same
manner as all other points in the scalar system of which it is a component, it is the one point of
that system that is not moving relative to the fixed reference system. A distributed scalar motion
is thus a quasi-permanent property of an object, even though the status of that object as the
reference point for its scalar motion makes the object appear stationary in the coordinate system.
An important consequence is that since the scalar motion of the object alters the distance
between this object and any other in the spatial reference system, the motion that is not
represented by a change in the position of the moving object itself must be represented in the
reference system by a change in the position of the other object. This conclusion that the motion
of object X appears to observation as a motion of object Y appears strange, or even dubious,
when it is encountered in a new situation such as the one now being discussed, but an apparent
change of this kind always takes place when the reference system is altered. When traveling by
train, for instance, and viewing another train moving slowly on the adjoining track, it is often
difficult to determine immediately which train is actually in motion. In this case, if the moving
train is mistakenly taken as stationary, its motion in the reference system is attributed to the other
train.
In the present connection, the conclusion as stated can easily be verified by examination of the
expanding balloon that is resting on the floor. Obviously, the true motion of spot X has not been
changed by placing .this spot in a fixed position on the floor. The balloon expansion is still
occurring in exactly the same way as before the placement, and spot X is therefore moving away
from its neighbors. It follows that in the context of a fixed reference system, where X does not
move, the scalar motion of spot X is distributed among the spots from which it is receding. For
example, a part of the motion of spot Y, as seen in the fixed reference system, is actually a
motion of spot X, the spot that occupies the reference point. The same is true of the motion of the
distant galaxies. The recession that we measure is simply the increase in distance between our
galaxy and the one that is receding from us. Unless we take the stand that our galaxy is the only
stationary object in the universe, we have to concede that a part of this increase in distance that
we attribute to recession of the other galaxy is actually due to motion of our own galaxy.

This is not difficult to understand when, as in the case of the galaxies, or the trains, the reason
why the distant objects appear to move, or appear to move faster than they actually do, is
obviously the arbitrary designation of our own location as stationary. What is now needed is a
recognition that this is a general proposition. The same result follows whenever a moving object
is arbitrarily taken to be stationary. As we have seen, the representation of a scalar motion in a
fixed coordinate system requires the assignment of a reference point, a point at which the scalar
motion takes a zero value in the context of the reference system. The motion that is taking place
at that reference point is thus seen, by the reference system, in the same way in which we view
our own motion in the galactic case; that is, the motion that is frozen by the reference system is
seen as motion of the distant objects.
It should be understood, however, that this immobilization of the reference point in the reference
system applies only to the representation of the scalar motion. There is nothing to prevent an
object located at the reference point from acquiring an additional motion of a vectorial character.
Where such motion exists, it is subject to the same considerations as any other vectorial motion.
The results of a directionally distributed scalar motion are totally different from those produced
by a combination of vectorial motions in different directions. The magnitudes and directions of
vectorial motions are interrelated, and their combined effects can be expressed as vectors. A
vectorial motion AB added to a vectorial motion AB of equal magnitude, but diametrically
opposite direction, produces a zero resultant. Similarly, vectorial motions of equal magnitude
outward in all directions from point A add up to zero. But the scalar motion XY of the spot Y on
the balloon surface retains the same positive (outward) magnitude regardless of the manner in
which it is directionally distributed. In this case, the direction is a property of the coupling to the
reference system, not of the motion itself. The magnitude of the motion, and its scalar direction
outwardare unchanged regardless of the changes of direction as seen in the reference system.
Here, then, is one of the hitherto unrecognized facts that are being brought to light by this work,
the existence of a type of motion that is quite different from the vectorial motions with which we
are familiar.
This is a fact that is undeniable. We can observe this different type of motion directly in
phenomena such as the expanding balloons, and we can detect it by means of measurements of
radiation frequencies in the case of the receding galaxies. As can easily be seen, this motion has
no property other than magnitude; that is, it is a scalar motion.
Referring again to the example of a motion of a point X between two points Y and Z, if this
motion is vectorial, the entire system of three points and the motion can be placed in a fixed
reference system as a complete unit. This is equally true if the system is large and
multidimensional. But if the system YXZ is scalar, only one point in that system can coincide

with a fixed point in the conventional stationary spatial reference system. The other two points
are moving relative to the coordinate system. This is a very different kind of motion.
The status of scalar motion as a type of motion distinct from ordinary vectorial motion has not
heretofore been recognized because the known phenomena involving such motion have not
appeared to be of any appreciable consequence, and no one has undertaken to examine them
critically. After all, there is not much interest in the physics of expanding balloons. But once it
has been established that scalar motion is a distinct type of motion that can be originated by
deliberate human action, it becomes evident that production of this type of motion by natural
means is not only a possibility, but a definite probability. Indeed, we have already identified one
naturally occurring motion of this kind, the galactic recession, and we are entitled to conclude
that other natural scalar motions probably exist somewhere in the universe. Since no such
motions are known at present, it follows that if they do exist, they are not currently recognized as
motions. This further suggests that there must be some serious error in the current beliefs as to
the nature of the phenomena in which these scalar motions are involved.
As soon as this issue is raised, it is practically obvious that the difficulty originates in the present
attitude toward the concept offorce. For application in physics, force is defined by Newtons
Second Law of Motion. It is the product of mass and acceleration, F = ma. Motion, the relation
of space to time, is measured on an individual mass unit basis as speed, or velocity, v, (that
is, each unit moves at this speed) or on a collective basis as momentum, the product of mass and
velocity, mv, formerly called by the more descriptive name quantity of motion. The time rate
of change of the magnitude of this motion is then dv/dt (acceleration, a) in the case of the
individual unit, and m dv/dt (force, ma) when measured collectively. Thus force is, in effect,
defined as the rate of change of the magnitude of the total motion. It can legitimately be called
quantity of acceleration,and this term will be used in the following discussion where it is
appropriate.
It follows from the definition that force is a property ofa motion; it is not something that can
exist as an autonomous entity. It has the same standing as any other property. The so-called
fundamental forces of nature, the presumably autonomous forces that are currently being
called upon to explain the origin of the basic physical phenomena, are necessarily properties of
underlying motions; they cannot exist as independent entities. Every fundamental force must
originate from a fundamental motion. This is a logical requirement of the definition of force, and
it is true regardless of the physical theory in whose context the situation is viewed.
In the absence of an understanding of the nature and properties of distributed scalar motion,
however, it has not been possible to reconcile what is known about the fundamental forces
with the requirements of the definition of force, and as a result this definition has become one of
the disregarded features of physics, so far as its application to the origin of the forces is
concerned. Notwithstanding the fact that force is specifically defined as a property of motion, the

prevailing tendency is to treat it as an autonomous entity, existing prior to motion. The following
statements, taken from current physics literature, are typical:
So forces provide structure, motion, and change of structure.2
The gravitational force, the electric force, and the nuclear force govern all that happens in the
world.3
The electric force is perhaps the fundamental conception of modern physics.4
As far as anyone knows at present, all events that take place in the universe are governed by four
fundamental types of forces.5
It is commonly recognized that the usual significance attached to the concept of force is in some
way incomplete. Richard Feynmans view is that force is something more than the defined
quantity. One of the most important characteristics of force is that it has a material origin, he
says, and he emphasizes that this is not just a definition. Further elaborating, he adds that in
dealing with force the tacit assumption is always made that the force is equal to zero unless some
physical body is present.6 This is unacceptable in an exact science. If a definition is
incomplete, it should be completed. But, in reality, the definition is not incomplete. The
prevailing impression that there is something missing is a consequence of the refusal to
recognize that this definition makes force a property of motion.
The status of motion as the basic entity is the reason for the material origin that Feynman
emphasizes. Without the presence of a physical body there is no effective motion, and
consequently no force. The exact relation between the physical bodies and the motions of which
the fundamental forces are properties will not be eonsidered in this work, as it involves some
matters that are outside the scope of this present discussion.
The way in which force enters into physical activity, and its relation to motion can be seen by
examination of some specific process. A good example is the action that takes place when a
space vehicle is launched. Combustion of fuel imparts a rapid motion to the molecules of the
combustion products. The objective of the ensuing process is then simply to transfer part of this
motion to the rocket. From a qualitative standpoint, nothing more needs to be said. But in order
to plan such an operation, a quantitative analysis is necessary, and for this purpose what is
needed is some measure of the capability of the molecules to transfer motion, and a measure of
the effect of the transfer in causing motion of the rocket. The property of force provides such a
measure. It can be evaluated (as a pressure, force per unit area) independently of any knowledge
of the individual molecular motions of which it is a property. Application of this magnitude to
the mass that is to be moved then determines the acceleration of that mass, the rate at which
speed is imparted to it. Throughout the process, the physically existing entity is motion. Force is
merely a property of the original motion, the quantity of acceleration, by means of which we are
able to calculate the acceleration per individual mass unit, a property of the consequent motion.

In the earlier paragraphs it was deduced that there exists, or at least may exist, somewhere in the
universe, a class of distributed scalar motions, not currently recognized as motions. Now a
critical examination of the concept of force shows that the presumably autonomous fundamental
forces are properties of unrecognized underlying motions. These two findings can clearly be
equated; that is, it can be concluded that the so-called fundamental forces are the force aspects
of the hitherto unrecognized scalar motions. The reason for this lack of recognition in presentday practice is likewise practically self-evident. A scalar motion with a fixed direction is not
currently distinguished from a vectorial motion, whereas if the scalar motion is directionally
distributed, which is possible because of the nature of the coupling between the motion and the
reference system, the phenomenon is not currently recognized as motion.
The distributed scalar motions have not been seen in their true light because motion has been
taken to be synonymous with vectorial motion, and phenomena such as gravitation that are
effective in many, or all directions, and therefore have no specific vectorial direction, are clearly
not vectorial motions. The concept of autonomous forces has therefore been invoked to provide
an alternative. As brought out in the preceding discussion, it is not a legitimate alternative, since
force is defined as a property of motion. This leaves present-day physical science in a dilemma,
because it cannot identify the motions that the definition requires. An electric charge, for
instance, produces an electric force, but so far as can be determined from observation, it does so
directly. There is no indication of any intervening motion. This situation is currently being
handled by ignoring the requirements of the definition of force, and treating the electric force as
an autonomous entity generated in some unspecified way by the charge.
The need for an evasion of this kind is now eliminated by the clarification of the nature of scalar
motion, which shows that the characteristics of rotationally distributed scalar motion are the very
ones that are required in order to exert forces of the kind that are now erroneously regarded as
autonomous. (t is now evident that the reason for the lack of any evidence of a motion
intervening between the electric charge and the electric force is that the charge itself is the
motion.It is the distributed scalar motion of which the electric force is a property.
The products of an analysis such as the foregoing do not come equipped with labels. A process
of identification is therefore essential where, as in this present case, the analysis is based on
premises of a general nature. Ordinarily the identification is easily accomplished, and in any
event, it is self-verifying, as a wrong identification would quickly lead to contradictions. As an
example of how this process operates, we observe certain objects in space that we call stars and
planets. The nature of these objects is not apparent from the observations. At one time they were
regarded as holes in the sky that allowed the light to shine through. But we have ascertained the
properties of matter where we are in direct contact with it, and we have ascertained some of the
properties of the stars and planets. To the extent that these properties can be compared, we find
them to be identical. This justifies the conclusion that the stars and planets are aggregates of

matter. In exactly the same way we identify the electric charge as a distributed scalar motion. It
has the properties of a distributed scalar motion.
The identification of the other basic distributed scalar motions is carried out in the same manner.
The details of this identification will be considered in the next chapter, but it is practically
obvious that the most general form of rotationally distributed scalar motion can be identified as
gravitation. In the light of the information developed in the preceding pages, it can be seen that
the gravitational force is not the antecedent of the gravitational motion; it is a property of that
motion. The continuous existence of the force is a result of the scalar character of the motion.
A uniform vectorial motion does not exert a force. By definition, a foree develops from such a
motion only when there is a departure from uniformity; that is, when there is a change in
momentum. However, the same well-understood geometrical considerations that lead to the
inverse square relation in application to a force distributed over three dimensions likewise apply
to a distributed scalar motion. If the total magnitude of such a motion is constant, the motion
is accelerated in the context of a fixed reference system. The acceleration is positive for an
inward motion and negative if the motion is outward. As noted by Wightman, since the days of
Galileo it has been accepted that whenever a body suffers an acceleration, there must be a force
acting on it. 7 We now see that this is true only in the case of vectorial motion. A constant
distributed scalar motion is an accelerated motion in the context of a fixed reference system, by
reason of the geometry of that system. Once it is initiated, such a motion requires no outside
force to maintain the acceleration.
The general nature of gravitation and other so-called fundamental forces is consistent with the
foregoing conclusion, as they are distributed forces; that is, force fields. The force aspect of a
vectorial motion is a vector; that of a distributed scalar motion is a field. The concept of the field
originally evolved from the earlier concept of an ether, and to those who follow the original line
of thinking a field is essentially an ether stripped of most of its physical properties. lt has the
funetions of an ether, without the limitations. The ether concept envisioned a physical substance
located in, and coextensive with, space. The school of thought generally identified with the name
of Einstein has replaced this ether with a field that is located in and coextensive with space.
There is then no empty space, Einstein asserts, that is, there is no space without a field.8 He
concedes that from his viewpoint the change from ether to field is mainly semantic:
We shall say: our space has the physical property of transmitting waves, and so omit the use of a
word (ether) we have decided to avoid.9
The greatest weakness of the ether concept, aside from the total lack of observational support,
was the identification of the ether as a substance. This established it as a physical connection
between objects separated in space, and thereby provided an explanation for the transmission of
physical effects, but it required the ether to have properties of an extraordinary and contradictory

character. Calling this connecting medium a field instead of an ethereliminated the

identification with substance, without putting anything else in its place, and enabled the
theorists to ascribe patterns of behavior to the medium without the limitations that necessarily
accompany the use of a specificaily defined entity. Nevertheless, those who visualize the field as
a purified ether still see it as something physically real. Again quoting Einstein:
The electromagnetic field is, for the modern physicist, as real as the chair on which he sits.10 We
are constrained to imagineafter the manner of Faradaythat the magnet always calls into being
something physically real in the space around it, that something being what we call a magnetic
field The effects of gravitation are also regarded in an analogous manner.11
Field theory is the orthodox doctrine in this area at present, but there is no general agreement on
details. Even the question as to what constitutes a field is subject to considerable difference of
opinion. For example, the following definition by Marshall Walker is a far cry from that
expressed by Einstein:
A field is a region of space where a test object experiences its specific force.12
Here we see that the field is equated with space a field is a region of space whereas Einstein
saw it as something real in the space. The difficulties in defining the field concept, together with
others involved in its application, have raised many doubts as to the validity of current ideas.
David Park gives us this assessment:
This does not mean that the ultimate explanation ofeverything is going to be in terms of fields,
and indeed there are signs that the whole development of field theory may be nearer its end than
its beginning.13
Clarification of the properties of scalar motion now shows that the present views as to the nature
of a field are incorrect. A field is not a physical entity like the physicists chair, nor is it a region
of space. It is the force aspect of a distributed scalar motion, the quantity of acceleration, and it
has the same relation to that motion as an ordinary force has to a vectorial motion. The two differ
only in that the ordinary force has a specific direction whereas the force of the field, like the
motion of which it is a property, is directionally distributed.
This is another olf the previously unrecognized facts of physical science that constitute the
principal subject matter of this volume. It is not, like the existence of scalar motion, something
that could have been recognized by anyone at any time, inasmuch as the discovery of distributed
scalar motion was a prerequisite for recognition of the properties of that kind of motion. But as
soon as the status of the fundamental forces as distributed scalar motions is recognized, the
true nature of fields is clearly defined. And this answer that emerges from the scalar motion study

isjust the kind of an explanation that the physicists have expected to find when and if the search
for an answer was successful. Again quoting David Park:
At present, we imagine all space to be filled by a superposition of fields, each named after an
elementary particleelectrons, protons, various kinds of mesons, etc. As new species proliferate,
it becomes more and more desirable that future theory, if it resembles the present one at all,
should contain but a single field, with the present types of matter corresponding to different
modes of excitation of it.14
This is essentially what we now find. There is only one kind of field, a distributed force, but the
nature of the effects produced by any specific force depends on the characteristics of the motion
of which the distributed force is a property.
The finding that the fundamental forces are properties of fundamental motions rather than
autonomous entities does not, in itself, solve the problem as to the origin offthese forces. In the
case of gravitation, for instance, it merely replaces the question, What is the origin of the
gravitational force? with the question, What is the origin of the gravitational motion? But it is a
definite step in the right direction, and every such step brings us closer to the ultimate goal. A
full-scale exploration of the problem has been carried out by the author, in the context of the
theory of a universe of motion, and will be published in a series of volumes, the first of which,
separately titled Nothing But Motion, is now in print.* This theoretical analysis, based as it is on
a new concept of the fundamental nature of the universe, involves some significant alterations of
existing physical viewpoints which not everyone will be prepared to accept. In order to make the
results of the scalar motion study generally available, the presentation in this volume has been
limited to those purely factual aspects of the scalar motion findings that are independent of
theoretical considerations, and must be accommodated within every system of physical theory.
CHAPTER 2
Multi-Dimensional Motion

In the preceding chapter it was pointed out that scalar motion unquestionably exists
(since we can observe it), but has not previously been recognized by physical science
(because it has not heretofore been subjected to the kind of a critical analysis that
would distinguish it clearly from ordinary vectorial motion). The long overdue study
and analysis has now been carried out, and the results thereof are being described in
this volume. So far it has been pointed out that scalar motion, which, by definition,
has a magnitude, also has an inherent scalar direction (inward or outward, in the
context of a fixed reference system), that it acquires a reference point and a vectorial
direction when it is physically coupled to a reference system, that the acquired
direction and reference point are totally dependent on the nature of the coupling, that

this vectorial direction is not necessarily constant, but may be distributed over two or
three dimensions of space, and that the distributed scalar motion is accelerated.
The most significant addition to scientific knowledge included in the foregoing list is
the existence of rotationally distributed scalar motion. In this present chapter we will
encounter another important addition to our store of factual information, another
hitherto unrecognized physical fact, the existence of scalar motion in more than one
dimension. This finding takes us farther out into the previously unexplored area of
physical science. The distributed scalar motions are unique, and have no vectorial
counterparts, but the ones that have been discussed thus far are specifically coupled to
the reference system, and occupy identifiable positions in that system. Now we need
to recognize that there are otherscalar motions that cannot be represented in the
reference system.
The finding that much of the action of the universe takes place outside (that is,
independent of) the reference system which most individuals are accustomed to regard
as the container, or setting, for all physical action, will no doubt be distasteful to many
persons. Of course, it would be simpler and easier for the human individual who is
trying to understand the physical universe if that universe would conform to the kind
of a reference system that he finds convenient. But we have to face the fact that it does
not do so. This was clearly established long ago, and is not seriously contested today
in scientific circles. The questions still at issue are the nature of, and the reasons for,
the discrepancies between the true physical situation and the representation in the
reference system. The present-day official school of physical theory has found these
questions so difficult to answer that it has, in desperation, resorted to the drastic step
of abandoning physical reality, so far as the basic physical entities are concerned.
According to Heisenberg, one of the principal architects of the prevailing structure of
theory, the basic entities of the universe are not objectively real at all; they are
phantoms which can only be symbolized by partial differential equations in an
abstract multidimensional space.15 P.W. Bridgman, another distinguished physicist,
retreats still further into philosophical obscurity, in this statement:
The revolution that now confronts us arises from the recent discovery of new facts,
the only interpretation of which is that our conviction that nature is understandable
and subject to law arose from the narrowness of our horizons, and that if we
sufficiently extend our range we shall find that nature is intrinsically and in its
elements neither understandable nor subject to law.16

Clarification of the nature of scalar motion, and identification of a number of the

hitherto unexplained basic physical phenomena as motions of this kind makes the
retreat from reality unnecessary. The mere fact that certain phenomena cannot be
accommodated within the kind of a reference system we have chosen to utilize does
not mean that they are unreal phantoms. We cannot represent the whole of physical
existence in terms of a reference system of limited scope, but by identifying the kinds
of magnitudes that are not capable of representation in the system we can determine
what additions or adjustments to the representation are required in order to arrive at an
accurate description of the total physical situation.
This particular identification process is quite difficult, however, not because the
process itself is particularly complicated, but because the reference system whose
limitations we are trying to ascertain is the one to which our own physical activities
conform, and to which, as a consequence, our thinking has been adjusted. In a sense,
this undertaking is analogous to the proverbial task of lifting ourselves by our
bootstraps. Even the simple concept of motion that is inherently scalar, and not merely
a vectorial motion whose directional aspects are being disregarded, involves a
conceptual reorientation of no small magnitude. Now we need to go a step farther and
recognize that in a three-dimensional universe scalar motion is not limited to the one
dimension that can be represented in the conventional spatial reference system. Twodimensional or three-dimensional scalar motions are equally possible.
From a mathematical standpoint, an n-dimensional quantity is merely one that
requires n magnitudes for a complete definition. As one dictionary explains, by way of
illustration, a2-b2-c is a term of five dimensions. A scalar motion in one dimension is
defined in terms of one magnitude; a scalar motion in three dimensions is defined in
terms of three magnitudes. One of the three dimensions of scalar motion can be
further divided dimensionally by the introduction of directions relative to a threedimensional spatial reference system. This expedient resolves the one-dimensional
scalar magnitude into three orthogonally related submagnitudes, which, together with
the directions, constitute vectors. No more than one of the three scalar magnitudes that
define a three-dimensional scalar motion can be expressed vectorially, because the
resolution of such a magnitude into vectorial components can only be accomplished in
the context of a reference system, the capacity of which is limited.
This conventional reference system is three-dimensional in space, but it is not capable
of representing more than one dimension of motion. Each individual motion that is

represented is characterized by a vector, and the resultant of any number of motions of

an object is a one-dimensional motion defined by the vector sum. All three dimensions
of the reference system are required for the representation of one-dimensional motion
of this nature, and there is no way in which the system can indicate a change of
position in a second dimension. This limitation of the capabilities of the reference
system does not restrict its ability to represent vectorial motion, inasmuch as that
motion is, by definition, motion relative to the reference system, and it is therefore
inherently one-dimensional. But we now need to recognize that scalar motion can take
place in two or three dimensions, and that only one of these dimensions of motion can
be represented in the reference system.
The existence of motion in more than one dimension is totally foreign to current
physical thought, in which the entire physical universe, aside from such things as
Heisenbergs phantoms, and the virtual particles and other ghostly denizens of the
quantum theories, is presumed to be contained within three-dimensional space and
clock time. But this merely emphasizes the fact that the conventional reference system
is not capable of representing the entire universe. Multi-dimensional scalar motion is
not an assumption or a theory. It is a necessary consequence of the existence of the
scalar type of motion, together with the existence of three dimensions of the universe.
Each dimension is available for scalar motion.
In order to distinguish the dimensions of scalar motion from the dimensions
of space in which one dimension of motion can take place, we will use the term
scalar dimension in a manner analogous to the use of the term scalar direction.
Here, again, whatever semantic objections there may be to the terminology are more
than offset by its convenience.
If the vector sum of all vectorial motions (measured as velocities) of an object is XA,
this sum is represented by a line XA in the reference system. In this case XA is
a completerepresentation of the motion. The representation of the scalar motion of
some object in the dimension of the reference system may also be XA, but in this case
XA is not necessarily a complete representation of the motion. For example, if the
scalar motion is two-dimensional, the object that is moving from X toward A is also
moving coincidentally in a scalar dimension XB perpendicular to XA. The motion XB
is totally independent of XA, and cannot be combined with it to produce a resultant
capable of representation in the reference system, as there is no way of combining
independent scalar motions. They can be added. The scalar sum XA+ XB is a

significant quantity for some purposes, but the motion XB does not enter into any of
the physical phenomena that are related to position in the coordinate system.
The question naturally arises: If motion in a second or third scalar dimension has no
effect that can be observed in terms of the spatial reference system, how do we know
that such motion exists? For an answer it needs to be recognized that scalar speed is a
physical magnitude. Under some circumstances, and within certain limits, this
magnitude can be represented as a vector in a spatial coordinate system, as indicated
in the previous pages. Beyond the scope of this representation it is still a physical
magnitude, and it enters into any measurement of such magnitudes that does not
depend on coordinate differences.
An example that will enter into some of the discussion that follows is the Doppler
shift. This modification of the frequency of emitted radiation is a direct measurement
of the speed of the emitting object, relative to the location of observation, and has no
relation to the coordinates of the reference system. It therefore measures the total
effective speed in the dimension of the reference system, irrespective of whether or
not that total includes components in that same dimension that are not capable of
representation in the reference system. The nature of such components will be
considered later.
With the benefit of the foregoing information about the dimensions of scalar motion,
we are now in a position to complete our identification of the principal distributed
scalar motions that are responsible for the existence of the fundamental forces. As
noted earlier, it is quite evident that the characteristics of distributed scalar motion are
identical with the observed characteristics of gravitation. In current thought, the
gravitational rriotion is believed to be produced by an autonomous gravitational force
of unknown origin. Einstein attributed it to a deformation of space due to the presence
of mass, and his theory of gravitation, the general theory of relativity, is part of the
dogma of modern physics. However, the extent to which it is actually accepted as a
real explanation is indicated by the fact that practically every book or article about
gravitation currently being published refers to it, either in the title or in the opening
paragraphs, as a mystery, a purzle, or an enigma. As described by Dean E.
Wooldridge, It is still as mysterious and inexplicable as it ever was. 17 R. H. Dicke,
one of the leading investigators in this field, sums up the situation in this manner:

In any case, it appears clear that there is little reason for complacency regarding
gravitation. It may well be the most fundamental and least understood of the
interactions.18
The problem that has hitherto baffled those who have attempted to explain gravitation
is that while it appears to be a force, its properties are totally unlike those of any
ordinary force. So far as can be determined from observation, it acts instantaneously,
without an intervening medium, and in such a manner that it cannot be screened off or
modified in any way. These behavior characteristics are so difficult to explain on the
basis of accepted physical theory that the theorists have taken the unprecedented step
of repudiating the observations. Inasmuch as it has not been found possible to
construct a theory that would fit the observations, these theorists have decreed that the
observations must be modified to fit the theory. Accordingly, since they cannot
explain the observed set of properties, they have constructed a fictitious set of
properties that they can explain, and have substituted these fictitious properties for the
observed properties. Notwithstanding all of the empirical evidence to the contrary, the
current contention of the physicists is that the gravitational effect must be transmitted
at a finite speed through a medium, or something with the properties of a medium.
There is no lack of recognition of the absurdity of the existing situation. The observers
keep calling attention to the discrepancy between what they find and the assumptions
on which current theory is based, as in this plaintive comment from a news item:
When it (the distance) is astronomical, the difficulty arises that the intermediaries
need a measurable time to cross, while the forces in fact seem to appear
instantaneously.19
The theorists admit that they have no factual support for their conclusions. As Max
von Laue explains,
Nowadays we are also convinced that gravitation progresses with the speed of light.
This conviction, however, does not stem from a new experiment or a new observation,
it is a result solely of the theory of relativity.20
Meanwhile, voices are raised warning against this kind of defiance of the results of
observation. This statement by G. deVaucoleurs is typical:

But if nature refuses to cooperate, or for a time remains silent, there is a serious
danger that the constant repetition of what is in truth merely a set of
a priori assumptions (however rational, plausible, or otherwise commendable) will in
time become accepted dogma that the unwary may uncritically accept as an
established fact or as an unescapable logical requirement. 21
But all this falls mostly on deaf ears. When the scientific community fails to recognize
the physical facts, such as the existence of distributed scalar motion, that point the
way to correct explanations of certain phenomena, there is always a pressure on the
theorists to produce some kind of an explanation. The inevitable result is the
construction of erroneous theories, particularly at a time when the allowable latitude
for the free use of ad hoc assumptions and other tactics for evading contradictions is
as wide as it is today. As R. B. Lindsay describes the situation:
The clever physicist will always reserve the right to invent in arbitrary fashion the
constructs he deems likely to succeed in the theoretical explanation of experience,
even if this leads to rather bizarre devices for identifying these constructs with
observational data.22
Once an erroneous theory is constructed with the aid of these bizarre devices, and
achieves general acceptance because there is no alternative, it becomes part of the
dogma of the scientific profession, and is defended against all attacks by all means
available, the most effective of which is an ad hoc modification of the theory to meet
whatever problem it encounters. As Einstein conceded,
It is often, perhaps even always, possible to adhere to a general theoretical foundation
by securing the adaptation of the theory to the facts by means of artificial additional
assumptions.23
In order to make these artificial assumptions plausible, it is often necessary to push
some of the observed facts into the background where they can be ignored. This work
is concerned primarily with previously unrecognized physical facts and their
necessary consequences. There are, however, many other significant items of a factual
nature that are known, but are disregarded, in part or in their entirety, because they
conflict with some aspects of current physical thought. The term neglected facts was
therefore used in the title of this volume in order to include those that are disregarded,
as well as those that have not previously been identified. The observed properties of

gravitation are in the disregarded category, although they are more than disregarded;
they are totally repudiated.
If there ever was a legitimate excuse for this kind of open defiance of the results of
observation, which is very doubtful, it has now been removed by the clarification of
the nature of scalar motion, since it is evident that the properties of rotationally
distributed scalar motion are identical with the observed properties of gravitation,
those unidue properties that have baffled the investigators who have tried to deal with
gravitation as an autonomous force. According to Feynman,
Newton . . . was satisfied to find what gravity did without getting into the machinery
of it. No one has since given any machinery.24
Now we have the machinery. The key to an understanding of gravitation is a
recognition that each gravitating object is pursuing its own course, independently of
all others. A distributed scalar motion of such an object in the inward scalar direction
is decreasing the magnitude of the distance between this object and every other object
in the reference system. Inasmuch as this decrease is a result of the motion of the
object itself, not of any interaction between objects, the decrease is instantaneous, and
requires no medium. The reason for the observed inability to interpose any kind of a
screen between gravitating objects is likewise evident.
These findings as to the nature of gravitation enable us to clarify the relation between
gravitation and inertia, a subject about which there has been considerable confusion.
The distributed scalar motion that we call gravitation has the same general properties
as any other motion. The ones with which we are now concerned are a number of
units (mass, m), a speed of each unit (v), a total quantity of motion ( momentum, mv),
an acceleration of each unit (dv/dt, or a), and a total quantity of acceleration (force,
ma). Like any other distributed scalar motion, gravitation also has some special
characteristics resulting from its scalar nature and its spatial distribution. One of these
is that the magnitude of all of these properties, except the number of units involved,
depends on the distance from the reference point. A related property is that because of
the geometry of the reference system, the motion is accelerated. Both of these special
characteristics have already been discussed.
Now we will want to take note of another unique property of distributed scalar
motion. I nasmuch as an object with such a motion is arbitrarily assigned a speed of

zero relative to the reference system by taking its location as a reference point for its
scalar motion, it is possible to produce a compound motion, a motion of the
distributed scalar motion, by moving the reference object. I n order to generate this
motion, mv, a quantity of acceleration (or force), ma, must be applied. The mass
appears in this process as a resistance to acceleration; that is, for a given applied force,
the greater the mass the less the acceleration, on the individual unit basis. In
gravitation, on the other hand, the mass appears to produce acceleration. It thus
seemed to the early investigators in this area that there are two different quantities
involved, an inertial mass and a gravitational mass. Very accurate measurements have
demonstrated that the magnitudes of these two types of mass are identical. This
naturally raised the question, Why? As reported by Gerholm:
This cannot be a coincidence! There must be some reason for the agreement. But
within the framework of classical physics there is no explanation. When attention was
directed to the problem, it seemed like a complete mystery.25
The mystery is simply a result of dealing with force on a basis that is inconsistent
with its definition as a property of motion. If it is recognized that the physical
processes with which we deal are relations between motions, and that what we are
measuring are quantities of motion transferred from one condition to another, it is
evident that the difference between output (as in gravitational action) and input (as in
overcoming inertia) is in the nature of the process, not in the nature of the entities
(motion and its properties) that are involved. This is well illustrated in cases where the
same motion plays both roles. In a steam operated air compressor, for instance, the
travel of the piston is the output of the first process, and the input of the second.
Einstein took a step forward in this area with his general theory of relativity. He did
not quite bring himself to the point of recognizing that gravitation is a motion, but he
formulated a principle of equivalence, in which he postulated (in the absence of any
available means whereby he could draw the conclusion from established premises)
that gravitation is equivalent to an accelerated frame of reference. This was a
significant advance in understanding, and it enabled making some predictions of
deviations from previous theory that have been verified, at least approximately, and
have been impressive enough to secure general acceptance of the theory by the
scientific community.

Notwithstanding its current status as the official gravitational theory, there is

considerable dissatisfaction with it, particularly among the leading investigators in the
gravitational area. Dickes characterization of gravitation, in the statement quoted
earlier, as the least understood of the interactions is, by implication, an adverse
judgment on the adeyuacy of the theory that is supposed to explain this phenomenon.
Peter G. Bergmann observes that lt appears as if general relativity contained within
itself the seeds of its own conceptual destruction, because we can construct `preferred
coordinate systems.26 Bryce DeWitt is more blunt. Asa fundamental physical theory
general relativity is a failure.27he says.
The finding that gravitation is a distributed scalar motion explains why general
relativity has not been able to satisfy the experts. While gravitation is accelerated, it is
accelerated in a geometric manner cluite different from that of an accelerated frame
of reference. Einsteins assumption of an equivalence between the two therefore
forced him to introduee a geometrical distortion in order to compensate for the partial
error in the equivalence assumption. The arguments for so doing are usually difficult
to follow because of the elaborate mathematical form in which they are normally
presented, but a more readily understandable summary by Gerholm reads as follows:
If acceleration and gravitation are equivalent, we must apparently also be able to
imagine an acceleration field, a field formed by inertial forces. lt is easy to realize that
no matter how we try, we will never be able to get such a field to have the same shape
as the gravitational field around the earth and other celestial bodies . . If we want to
save the equivalence principle . . . if we want to retain the identity between
gravitational and inertial mass, then we are forced to give up Euclidean geometry!
Only be accepting a nonEuclidean metric will we be able to achieve a complete
equivalence between the inertial field and the gravitational field. This is the price we
must pay.28
An analysis of this statement in the light of the findings described in the preceding
pages shows what is wrong with the current thought on the subject. Einsteins forward
step in recognizing gravitation as the equivalent of an accelerated motion did not take
him far enough to give him a clear picture of the situation. Before that clarification
could be accomplished it was necessary to understand that gravitation is not
only equivalent to an accelerated motion; it is an accelerated motion, but it is a motion
of a special kind: a distributed scalar motion. The force aspect of such a motion is
likewise directionally distributed: it is a force field. Accelerated vectorial motion of

the gravitating object is notdirectionally distributed. One of the properties of such a

motion is a quantity of acceleration, or force, but without the distribution in direction
there is no force field. The notion, expressed in the foregoing quotation, that there is
an inertial force field that has to be reconciled with the gravitational field by resort to
non-Euclidean geometry is totally unfounded. The mass is the same in both cases, and
the total force is the same, but the directional characteristics of the two types of
motion are altogether different.
Just how much modification of general relativity will be required when the
accelerated frame of reference is replaced by the correct distributed scalar motion is a
question that is outside the scope of this present work. However, some points are quite
clear. Those conclusions that result directly from the concept of gravitation as an
accelerated motion (or the equivalent thereof), such as the gravitational redshift, will
not be affected. Others, such as the advance of the perihelion of M ercury, will be seen
in a somewhat different light.
There will be a return to Euclidean geometry, and no doubt, a corresponding
simplification of the mathematics. The basic revision of Einsteins thought that will be
required, however, results from the positive identification of gravitation as an inherent
property of matter.
This was once the accepted explanation. Lovell reports,that the idea of gravity as an
intrinsic property of matter was gradually accepted and remained unchallenged until
the publication of Einsteins general theory of relativity in 1916. 29 Einstein replaced
this concept with his version of Machs Principle, a hypothesis which asserts that the
inertial properties of matter on a small scale are determined by the behavior of matter
on a cosmic scale.30 This idea is simple enough in itself, but as Dennis Sciama
explains:
To translate these ideas into complete mathematical form turns out to be a tricky
business . . . The problem is technically difficult because Einsteins equations are nonlinear. This means that the influence of many stars is not the simple sum of the
influence of each one taken separately. It is, therefore, difficult to analyse the
gravitational field of the universe in sufficient detail. 31
Sciama reports that the uncertainties in this situation have occasioned many
differences of opinion. There are, he says, three distinct schools of thought as to the

direction that should be taken in further study. All of these ideas are now invalidated
by the identification of gravitation as a distributed scalar motion. This identity, now a
definitely established physical fact, carries with it the identity of gravitational and
inertial mass, and invalidates Machs Principle.
As noted earlier, identification of gravitation as a distributed scalar motion does not
answer the basic question, the question as to its origin. This answer cannot be
obtained from what we have learned thus far about scalar motion. Nor can this new
information account for all of the details of the gravitational phenomenon. But the
clarification of the nature of the gravitational effect is a significant accomplishment,
and it opens the door to further advances. Such advances have already been made by
means of investigations along theoretical lines, and are reported elsewhere. They will
not be discussed here, as this volume is being limited to the findings with respect to
scalar motion, and their direct consequences, items that are independent of the
changes in basic physical concepts that are involved in the theoretical development.
When the status of gravitation as a distributed scalar motion is recognized, it is only
one more step to a realization that the presumably autonomous electric and magnetic
forces are also properties of distributed scalar motions. No one, says Feynman, has
ever succeeded in making electricity and gravity different aspects of the same
thing.32 This statement is now outdated. Like gravitation, the electric charge, the
source of the electric force, is a motion. This finding will no doubt come as a surprise
to most scientists, and there may be a tendency to regard it as a drastic revision of
current scientific thought. But current science has nothing at all to say on the subject.
The charge is simply accepted as a given feature of the universe, an unanalyzable,
as Bridgman called it. We are told that it makes no sense to ask what the charge is.
Andrade elaborates on this point in the statement quoted in part in Chapter 1:
The question, What is electricity?so often asked is . . . meaningless . . .
Electricity is one of the fundamental conceptions of physics; it is absurd to expect to
be told that it is a kind of a liquid, or a known kind of force, when we explain the
properties of liquids in terms of electricity, and electric force is perhaps the
fundamental conception of modern physics.4
This statement, which purports to explain why the question is unanswerable, actually
explains why the physicists are unable to answer it. They are putting the cart before
the horse. By ignoring their own definition of force, and elevating electric force to the

status of a fundamental conception they are closing the door on any recognition of
the antecedents of that force.
Those who concede any meaning at all to the question as to the nature of electric
phenomena generally consign such yuestions to the metaphysical realm, as in this
statement by F. N. H. Robinson:
The question What is electricity? like the question What is matter? really lies
outside the realm of physics and belongs to that of metaphysics. 33
This line of demarcation between the physical and the metaphysical that is drawn in
current thought is actually a boundary between that which is believed to be
understood and that which is not understood. A force originates in some way from an
electric charge. Force is a phenomenon with which the physicists consider themselves
reasonably familiar. Charge is something that they have never been able to bring
within their field of comprehension. Mass, the property of matter that determines the
magnitude of the gravitational force, is no better understood. Magnetism is explained
as being due to the motion of charges, but as long as the charges remain unexplained,
the addition of movement does not represent much of an advance in understanding.
The physicists have therefore taken force, the phenomenon that they believe they do
understand, as the basic physical reality.
As pointed out in Chapter 1, this promotion of force to the status of an autonomous
basic physical entity is self contradictory, since force is defined in a way that makes it
a property of a motion, not an independent entity. The autonomous force concept has
survived only because no satisfactory alternative has heretofore been available, and
without something to take its place, the physicists have been unwilling to subject it to
the kind of a critical examination that strict adherence to scientific procedure would
require.
Recognition of the existence of distributed scalar motion has now clarified the
situation. The fundamental forces are the force aspects of distributed scalar motions.
Charge and mass are merely names for these previously unrecognized motions.
There is no need to resort to metaphysics to account for their existence.
Like the gravitational motion, the electric and magnetic motions are distributed over
the three spatial dimensions of the reference system, and they have some of the same

general characteristics. But there are also some significant differences. One of these is
that the electric force is vastly more powerful than gravitation. Science writers are
fond of pointing out that gravitation would be a relatively inconsequential feature of
the universe if it were not for the immense size of so many of the objects from which
it originates: stars, planets, galaxies, etc.
The finding that scalar motion can take place in three scalar dimensions, only one of
which is capable of representation in the spatial reference system, now supplies an
explanation of this difference in magnitude. We can logically conclude that
gravitation, which is clearly the basic type of distributed scalar motion, applying to all
material objects under all conditions, is the motion that takes place in all three scalar
dimensions. The difference in the magnitudes of the motions, as observed in the
reference system, can then be readily accounted for if we identify the electric motion
as being limited to one scalar dimension. On this basis, the full magnitude of the
electric motion (and force) is effective in observable physical phenomena, whereas
only one dimension of the three- (scalar) dimensional gravitational motion (and force)
is similarly effective.
A logical corollary of the foregoing is the existence of a two(scalar) dimensional
motion (and force) of the same nature, with a magnitude intermediate between that of
gravitation and that of the electric motion. Magnetism is a phenomenon that clearly
meets this specification. Here one dimension of motion is observable in the reference
system, and one is unobservable. These comments apply only to what is known as
permanent magnetism and to the phenomena of magnetostatics.
Electromagnetism is a phenomenon of a different nature that is outside the scope of
this present work.
The quantititive relations are in general agreement with the foregoing qualitative
observations. The numerical relation between space and time in one dimension, as
indicated by the speed of light (the significance of which we will discuss later), is 3 x
1010in terms of conventional measurement units (cgs system). According to the
foregoing explanation, it is (3 x 1010)2 in magnetism. The normal relation between
electric and magnetic quantities should therefore be 3 x 10 10, which agrees with the
observed value. The relation betwen the electric and gravitational motion is affected
by some differences in the nature of the motion distribution that will be examined in
Chapter 3, but the ratio of electric to gravitational force is substantially greater than
the electric/ magnetic ratio, as the dimensional difference requires.

This identification cf electric and magnetic forces as the force aspects of distributed
scalar motions conflicts in some important respects with currently accepted ideas.
Inasmuch as the current ideas are products of the prevailing theory of electricity and
magnetism, there will no doubt be a tendency to take it for granted that the new
conclusions reached herein are products of some different theory. This is not correct.
The identification is purely factual. We define certain classes of entities and determine
their properties from observation. When we then observe entities that have these
properties, and no others that are inconsistent with them, we identify these observed
entities as members of the defined classes. This is a purely objective and factual
process. The results thereof have the same standing as any other items of factual
knowledge.
It follows that those elements of the currently prevailing theory that arrive at different
conclusions are definitely in error, in whole or in part. This is not a matter of opinion
orjudgment. When one tenable theory conflicts with another, a decision as to which is
correct, or more nearly correct, generally has to depend, to a considerable degree, on
judgment as to the weight to be accorded to each of the various items of evidence. But
when a theory conflicts with definitely established facts, it is no longer tenable, and it
must give way.
Once the existence of these distributed scalar motions is recognized, it is immediately
evident that the basic error in current theory is the assumption that electric, magnetic,
and gravitational effects are propagated at a finite speed through a medium, or
something with the properties of a medium. As noted earlier, the observed
characteristics of gravitation are in direct conflict with this assumption, and the
physicists can maintain their theoretical position only by repudiating the observations.
The situation with respect to the electric and magnetic forces is not as clear-cut, as it is
confused by the existence of other related phenomena that are not distinguished, or
not clearly distinguished, from the effects of these forces in current thought. The most
significant contributor to the existing confusion is electromagnetic radiation.
No detailed discussion of this radiation will be included in this present volume, as it
does not enter into the matters here being discussed. However, since current theory is
based on the assumption that radiation is involved in these matters, it will be advisable
to point out just what is wrong with this hypothesis. Radiation is
an energy transmission process. Photons leave the radiation source, travel through
space, and eventually reach a material atom or aggregate by which they are absorbed.

Each photon carries a specific amount of energy. The energy of the source is
decreased by this amount when the photon is emitted, and tne energy of the absorber
is increased by this amount when the photon is absorbed. At either end of the path the
radiant energy is readily interchangeable with any other type of energy. The energy of
the impinging photon may, for instance, be converted into kinetic energy (heat), or
into etectric energy (the photoelectric effect), or into chemical energy (photo-chemical
action). Similarly, any of these other types of energy that may exist at the point of
emission of the radiation may be converted into radiation by appropriate processes.
This radiant energy transmission process is entirely independent of the distance
between the emitter and the absorber, aside from the effect of the distance on the
amount of time required for the travel.
The action of a distributed scalar motion is a totally different kind of a process.
Gravitation, for instance, instead of being independent of the distance, is totally
dependent on the distance; that is, the separation between the objects under
consideration. Unless this distance is altered, there is no change at all in the energy of
either object. The forcepersists, but there is no energy effect. Where one object does
increase its kinetic energy by reason of a decrease in the distance, as in the case of an
object falling toward the earth, this energy increment is not acquired at the expense of
the earth; it is derived from the energy of position (the potential energy) of the moving
object itself.
Furthermore, gravitational energy is not interchangeable with other forms of energy.
At any specific location with respect to other masses, a mass unit possesses a definite
amount of gravitational (potential) energy, and it is impossible to increase or decrease
this energy content by conversion from or to other forms of energy. It is true that a
change of location results in a release or absorption of energy, but the gravitational
energy that a mass possesses at point A cannot be converted to any other type of
energy at point A, nor can the gravitational energy at A be transferred unchanged to
any other point B (except along equipotential lines). The only energy that makes its
appearance in any other form at point B is that portion of the gravitational energy
which the mass possessed at point A, but can no longer retain at point B: a fixed
amount determined entirely by the difference in location.
These facts are obvious to anyone who wants to see them, but as Harlow Shapley once
remarked in a comment about the situation in the cosmological field, facts have been
the number one enemy of theories.34 After the theorists have found themselves

frustrated time and time agin over a long period of years they become desperate, and
begin constructing their theories in defiance of the facts. This is what has happened in
the areas that we are now examining. Thus it is not surprising that these current
theories are in conflict with the new facts disclosed by the scalar motion investigation.
They were already in conflict with many old facts that have long been part of the main
body of scientific knowledge. In the terminology of this work, these are disregarded
facts.
CHAPTER 3
Distinctive Properties

It is difficult to reconcile the general acceptance of the current theories discussed in

the preceding chapter with the respect that science claims to accord to the observed
facts. As expressed by Max Black, If one trait, more than any other, is characteristic
of the scientific attitude, it is reliance on the data of experience. 35But in the
formulation of these theories the data of experience are summarily rejected.
Apparently the prevailing opinion is that any theory is better than none at all. Of
course, there is something to be said for this proposition if the wrong or untestable
theories are accepted only on an interim basis, as something to be .used pending the
discovery of the correct relations. However, such an interim acceptance is not proof,
or even evidence, of the validity of a theory, and it certainly provides no justification
for repudiating or disregarding the physical facts.
Elevation of a currently popular theory to a status superior to established facts, as
indicated in the quotation from Max von Laue, is a violation of the most basic tenets
of science. Whatever the standing of the relativity theory as a whole may be, if and
when it conflicts with a physical fact it is, to that extent, wrong. No scientist can deny
this if he faces the issue squarely. But to acknowledge such errors would involve
conceding that there are serious deficiencies in the conventional structure of theory,
and this the scientific community is currently unwilling to do.
At the moment science is riding the crest of a remarkable record of achievement
unparalleled elsewhere in human life, and this has fostered an overconfidence in the
procedures and capabilities of the scientific profession, specifically the widely held
belief that what present-day scientists have not been able to do cannot be done. If long
and careful consideration by competent scientists has not succeeded in finding a
viable alternative to an accepted theory that is inconsistent with some physical fact or

facts, then it is evident, from the present viewpoint of the scientific Establishment,
that no such alternative exists. We must accept the defective theory or concept because
we have no choice. There is no other way,36says Einstein. There was and there is
now no alternative,37asserts Millikan. There are no physical laws to tell us - and
there cannot be,38contends Bronowski. Bridgman refers to the only
interpretation 16 of the facts that he cites, and so on. This assumption of omniscience
is all the more difficult to understand in view of the clarity with which each generation
of scientists recognizes the limitations to which their predecessorswere subject. As
expressed by Millikan:
We all began to see that the nineteenth century physicists had taken themselves a little
too seriously, that we had not come quite as near sounding the depths of the universe,
even in the matter of fundamental physical principles, as we thought we had. 39
The nature of the fallacy that is inherent in all statements of the There is no other
way type is well illustrated by the situation to which Einstein applied these words.
He was referring to his rubber yardstick for space and time. Moving rods must
change their length, moving clocks must change their rhythm, 36 is his conclusion.
The positive assertion by R. A. Millikan that there is no alternative refers to the
same conclusion. But like the former generations of scientists to whom Millikan refers
in the longer quotation, he and Einstein are basing their conclusions on the premise
that the prevailing view of physical fundamentals is incontestable. As Fred Hoyle
pointed out in connection with a similar conclusion in a different field,
The argument amounts to nothing more than the convenient supposition that
something which has not been observed does not exist. It predicates that we know
everything.40
The truth is that we can never be certain that all alternatives to a set of premises have
been identified, or even that we have correctly identified all of the elements that enter
into any given situation. The findings with respect to the properties of scalar motion
that are reported in this volume now show not only that Einstein was incorrect in his
assertion that there is no other way, but that the only way that he was able to see
is the wrong alternative. As noted by one observer, In his relativity theory, he
(Einstein) quite rightly started with the commonplace assumption that time is what
you read off a clock.41This assumption is actually a definition of time for purposes
of Einsteins development of thought, and no exception can be taken to it on that

basis. But after thus defining it, he turned around andassumed that time , as thus
defined, is also the time that enters into the equations of motion. There is no
physical evidence that this is true, as a general proposition. At low speeds there is
agreement, and if this agreement applied throughout all motion, the identity of the two
concepts of time would be verified by the same principles of identification that were
discussed earlier in this work. But there is no such agreement at high speeds.
The conclusion that would normally be reached from such a discrepancy is that time
as identified by a clock registration cannot be identified with the time that enters
into the equations of motion. In the analogous case of the identification of the stars
and planets, discussed in
Chapter 1 , if the properties of these objects, under some conditions, were found to be
quite different from those of matter, then the identification as aggregates of matter
would no longer be tenable. But Einstein did not accept the verdict of the
observations, and instead of recognizing that they invalidated the assumption as to the
identity of the two concepts of time, he assumed a variability in the magnitudes that
are involved.
In the subsequent pages of this work the nature of the timethat enters into the
equations of motion will be determined from factual premises, and it will be shown
that it is not, except in a special case, equivalent to the time registered on a clock the same conclusion that would normally be drawn from the discrepancy that has been
mentioned. The mere appearance of this conclusion, regardless of how it was derived.
and independent of its validity, automatically demolishes the contention of Einstein,
Millikan, and the scientific community in general, that there is no other way, as it
clears the way for an explanation based on a different concept of time.
The true place of time in the physical picture will be considered later. The point of the
present discussion is that the theories and concepts of present-day physical science are
not all firmly established and incontestable, as the textbooks would have us believe.
Many of them are, to be sure, but others are nothing more than temporary expedients steppingstones toward better theories,42as P. A. M. Dirac called them. Norwood
Hanson explains that we are accepting theories that are conceptually imperfect and
riddled with inconsistencies because there is no intelligible alternative currently
available.43In those cases, such as the gravitational situation discussed in the preceding
chapter where the new findings from the scalar motion investigation take issue with
current thought, they are merely producing the intelligible alternative or other

way that is required to put physical understanding on a sound basis. In this present
chapter we will continue this operation, exploring the consequences of the distinctive
properties of scalar motion.
One of the unique characteristics of this type of motion is that it is indifferent
to location in the spatial reference system. From the vectorial standpoint locations are
very significant. A vectorial motion originating at location A and proceeding in the
direction AB is specifically defined in the reference system, and is sharply
distinguished from a similar motion originating at location B and proceeding in the
direction BA. But since a scalar motion has magnitude only, a scalar motion of A
toward B is simply a decrease in the distance between A and B. As such, it cannot be
distinguished from a motion of B toward A. Both of these motions have the same
magnitude, and neither has any other property.
Of course, the scalar motion plus the coupling to the reference system does have a
specific location in that system: a specific reference point and a specific direction. But
the coupling is independent of the motion. The factors that determine its nature are not
necessarily constant, and the rnotion AB does not necessarily continue on the AB
basis. A change in the coupling may convert it to BA, or it may alternate between the
two.
The observed deflection of photons of radiation toward massive objects is an
illustration of the application of this property of scalar motion. The photon has no
mass, and therefore no gravitational motion toward a massive aggregate, a star, for
instance. But the gravitational motion of the star is a distributed scalar motion, and
this scalar motion of the star toward the photon (AB) is inherently nothing more than
a decrease in the distance between the objects. It can equally well appear in the
reference system as a motion of the photon toward the star (BA). On the basis of
probability, the total motion is divided between the two alternatives. The total motion
of the star toward the photon is distributed among so many mass units that the motion
of each is unobservable, but the photon is a single unit, and it is deflected a small, but
measurable, amount toward the star.
Another manifestation of this property of scalar motion is seen in the induction of
electric charges. As brought out in Chapter 2, the electric force is a property of a
distributed scalar motion. Charge is therefore merely a name for this entity that has
not heretofore been recognized as a motion. While charges are generally similar to the

gravitational motion, aside from the difference in dimensions, it is clear from their
effects that their distribution does not have the constant rotational pattern that is
characteristic of gravitation. Instead, the rotation of the coupling to the reference
system changes constantly and uniformly from clockwise to counterclockwise, and
vice versa: that is, it is a simple harmonic motion. The pattern of this distribution is a
rotational vibration, similar to the motion of the hairspring of a watch, rather than a
simple rotation.
A consideration of the factors involved in the addition of scalar motions shows that
this distinetive characteristic of the distribution of the electric motion is a positive
requirement. It is necessary for the existence of this type of motion. If the charge had
a full rotational distribution, differing from gravitation only by reason of being
onedimensional, it would merely modify the magnitude of the gravitational motion in
this one dimension, and would not constitute a distinet physical phenomenon. But the
rotational vibration is a different kind of a scalar motion, and it adds to the
gravitational motion rather than merging with it.
The vibratory nature of the electric motion (charge) favors a periodic redetermination
of the direction of motion (that is, a change in the nature of the coupling of the scalar
motion to the reference system). As in the photon situation, the result is a distribution
of the motion between the two alternatives. In each case, the motion that originated as
AB becomes divided between AB and BA. The result is more striking in the case of
the electric charge because of the vibratory nature of the motion, which makes it
evident that the motion of object B is induced by the similar motion of the initially
charged object A.
Corresponding to the one-dimensional scalar motion distributed in a rotational
vibration pattern that we know as the electric charge is a two-dimensional scalar
motion similarly distributed. As noted in Chapter 2, this is a magnetic motion. The
term charge is not generally used in relation to magnetism, because present-day
theory regards magnetism as due to motion of electric charges, rather than as a distinet
phenomenon. On the basis of aur findings with respect to distributed scalar motion,
however, it is evident that there is a magnetic scalar motion similar in all (or at least
most) respects to the electric charge, except that it is two-dimensional. A detailed
development of the magnetic situation will require a theoretical base, which is
something that is not provided by the factual treatment of scalar motion in this
volume, but it can be deduced from what is known about the analogous electric charge

that permanent magnetism and magnetostatic phenomena are two-dimensional

distributed scalar motions (and their consequences), whereas electromagnetism is
something of a different character.
The foregoing explanation of the fundamental nature of electric and magnetic action
has the appearance of action at a distance, a concept that is philosophically
objectionable to many scientists. Because of this philosophical bias, the prevailing
opinion is that there must be some kind of transmission of an effect between the
inducing object and the object in which the effect is induced, notwithstanding the total
lack of any physical evidence to support this conclusion. But action at a distance is a
concept that does not apply to scalar motion at all. An outward scalar motion of object
X simply increases the distance between X and all other objects. So far as the relation
between X and some other object Y is concerned, this result is indistinguishable from
an outward scalar motion of Y. Because there is no difference between the scalar
motion XY and the scalar motion YX, the representation of this motion in the
reference system can take either form (or alternate between the two), even though,
from the standpoint of the reference system, XY and YX are two distinct motions.
There is nothing strange or irrational about this as long as it is understood that we
cannot expect the universe to conform to the particular arbitrary pattern that happens
to be convenient for us. The problems arise when we attribute reality to these arbitrary
patterns. The fact that will have to be faced is that the three-dimensional fixed spatial
framework in which we customarily view the universe is not a container or
background for physical activity, as has been assumed. It is merely a refererice
system. What the scalar motion investigation has disclosed is that it is a very
imperfect reference system. As we saw in Chapter 2, it is limited to one of the three
dimensions in which scalar motion takes place. Chapter 4 will show that it is further
limited to a fraction of the total range of scalar speeds. The point now being
emphasized is that even within the limited regions in which it is capable of
representing scalar, as well as vectorial, motion, there are some aspects of scalar
motion that are incompatible with the inherent nature of a fixed reference system.
To most scientists, this is an unwelcome conclusion. But it is a direct consequence of
established physical facts, and it is therefore true regardless of how unpopular it may
be. Furthermore, it has long been recognized that there is something wrong with the
naive assumption that nature will obligingly accommodate itself to the kind of a
reference system that we find most convenient, and it has further been recognized

that, as a consequence, we are faced with the necessity of making some changes of a
drastic, and probably distasteful, nature in our views as to the relation between
physical reality and the representation of that reality in the conventional reference
system. For example, F. A. Lindemann made this comment fifty years ago:
It is not easy to make clear the arbitrary nature of the space-time framework which we
have chosen in order to describe reality. The coordinates are so convenient in the case
of the grosser macroscopic phenomena, immediately perceptible to our senses, and
have become so deeply ingrained in our habits of thought and so inextricably
embalmed in our language that the suggestion that these indefinables may be
meaningless, or, at the best, only statistically valid, is bound to be met with a certain
amount of repugnance.44
Enough is now known about this situation to make it clear that the question is
not whetherthere are aspects of reality that are not correctly represented in the
conventionat spatial reference system, but rather, What is the nature of the deviations?
As matters now stand, most of the items of this character with which we will be
concerned in the pages that follow are still unexplained by present-day science.
Einsteins relativity theory is currently credited with having provided the explanation
of what originalty appeared to be a deviation of this kind, an apparentty irreconcilable
conflict between representation in the reference system and direct speed measurement
at very high speeds. In both this and the gravitational situation, Einsteins answer was
to distort the reference system, investing the space and time of that system with
enough flexibility to conform with the mathematical expression of the observed
behavior. He admitted that it is not so easy to free aneself from the idea that coordinates must have an immediate metrical meaning, 45but as he saw the problem, and
asserted in the statement previously quoted, there is no other way.
Recognition of the existence of scalar motion, and the consequences of that existence,
has now produced the allegedly nonexistent other way in both of these cases,
eliminating the need for any distortion of the reference system, and identifying both
gravitation and high-speed motion as normal phenomena of the region represented in
the reference system. However, there are also many real deviations of the natural
order of the universe from the conceptual structure represented by the conventional
three-dimensional spatial frame of reference, and these constitute the principal subject
matter of this present volume. The apparent action at a distance resulting from the
indifference of scalar motion to location in the reference system is merely one of the

ways in which the reality of physical existence deviates from the simple and
convenient framework in which the human race has attempted to confine it.
In this case, the problem arises because all elements of a scalar motion system are
moving. In order to place this system in a fixed frame of reference, one of these
elements must be arbitrarily designated as stationary, but there is no requirement that
this assignment be permanent. In the scalar interpretation of the threepoint system
YXZ, for instance, all three points are moving away from each other. While point X is
moving in the direction XY, it is also moving in the direction XZ. There is no way in
which this kind of motion can be represented in a fixed reference system in its true
character. When the motion is brought into the reference system it is coupled to that
system in such a way that some point that is actually moving becomes stationary
relative to the coordinate system. lf this point is X, the motion of Y outward from X
becomes an observable motion in the reference system, while the motion of X
outward from Y becomes unobservable, because X is motionless in the reference
system. The distinction between stationary and moving, which is essential for
representation in the reference system, but does not exist in the motion itself, is
provided by the physical coupling of the motion to the reference system.
I nasmuch as the coupling is separate and distinct from the motion - the placement of
the expanding balloon in the room, for example, is completely independent of the
expansion of the balloon - there is no reason why it must necessarily retain its original
form permanently. On the contrary, it is to be expected that in the normal course of
events, particularly where the nature of the coupling is determined by probability
factors, there will be a redetermination from time to time. This is what happens in the
induction of charges.
In the induction process, the unusual effect arises because the reference system has a
property, location, that the scalar motion does not have. Another unusual effect arises
for the inverse reason: the scalar motion has a property that the reference system does
not have, the property that we have called scalar direction. The spatial reference
system does not distinguish specifically between inward and outward scalar motion.
For instance, an object falling toward the earth by reason of gravitation is moving
inward. Light photons reflected from this object, which may be moving on exactly the
same path, are moving outward. In the context of the spatial reference system,
however, both the light beam and the object are moving from the original location of
the object toward the earth. In this case an outward (positive) scalar magnitude and an

inward (negative) scalar magnitude are represented in the spatial reference system in
exactly the same manner.
This is another place where the reference system is not capable of representing scalar
motion in its true character. H owever, we can take care of this situation conceptually
by introducing the idea of positive and negative reference points. As we saw earlier,
assignment of a reference point is essential for the representation of a scalar motion in
the spatial reference system. This reference point then constitutes the zero point for
the measurement of the motion. It will be either a positive or a negative reference
point, depending on the nature of the motion. The photon originates at a negative
reference point and moves outward toward more positive values. The gravitational
motion originates at a positive reference point and moves inward toward more
negative values. If both motions originate at the same location in the reference system,
as in the case of the falling object, the representation of both motions takes the same
form in this system.
What we are doing by using positive and negative reference points is compensating
for a deficiency in the reference system by the use of an auxiliary device. This is not a
novel expedient; it is standard practice. Rotational motion, for instance, is represented
in the spatial reference system with the aid of an auxiliary quantity: the number of
revolutions. Similarly, a clock is an auxiliary device without which the reference
system could portray only spatial quantities, and could not show motion at all. Scalar
motion is no different from vectorial motion in its need for such auxiliary quantities,
except that it has a broader scope, and as a result transcends the reference system in
more ways.
Aside from clarifying the theoretical situation, this recognition of two kinds of
reference points has little effect in dealing with gravitation or radiation, as both of
these phenomena maintain the same reference point and the same scalar direction
within the range capable of representation in the conventional spatial reference
system. But there are other phenomena that involve both reference points. For
example, the motion that constitutes an electric charge, a distributed scalar motion, is
always outward, but that of a positive charge is outward from a positive reference
point, while that of a negative charge is outward from a negative reference point.
Thus, as indicated in the accompanying diagram, while two positive charges (line a)
move outward away from each other, and two negative charges (c) do likewise, a
positive charge moving outward from a positive reference point, as in (b), is

moving toward a negative charge that is moving outward from a negative reference
point. Thus like charges repel each other, while unlike charges attract.

<|>

(b)

|>

<|

(c)

<|>

(a)

The special characteristics of the electric and magnetic motions, the vacant
dimensions, the inductive effects, and the alternate reference points, account for the
screening effects that are prominent features of electricity and magnetism, but are
absent in gravitation. As can be seen from the nature of distributed scalar motion, the
motion of A toward or away from B, and the corresponding force, cannot be affected
by anything in the space between A and B, unless that entity is in contact with either A
or B. But if the intervening object C has a distributed scalar motion of the same kind,
then the total effect is A + C. In the case of gravitation, C is always positive, as
gravitation is always inward, and, in our local environment, always has a positive
reference point. In electrical and magnetic phenomena, however, the charge on C, if
any, can be either positive or negative. lt is usually an induced charge, and therefore
opposes the charge on A. In this case C is a negative quantity, and the net charge A +
C is less than A; that is, there is a screening effect.
Any one dimension of a multi-dimensional scalar motion can be represented in the
spatial reference system. As indicated earlier, if the scalar motion XA is thus
represented, any motion XB that may exist in a second scalar dimension has no
observable effect in the reference system. However, under some circumstances, a
scalar motion AX, equal in magnitude to the motion XA, and opposite in scalar
direction, may be superimposed on XA, reducing the net effective motion in this
dimension to zero. In this case there is no obstacle to representation of motion in
another dimension, and the motion XB therefore makes its appearance in the reference
system. Thus the rather unusual result of applying the negative motion (or force) is to
produce a motion perpendicular to the direction of the originating motion.
According to Newtons Second Law of Motion, the acceleration is in the direction of
the applied force. The effectjust described appears to violate this law, and in view of
the firm position that the second law occupies in physics, a violation is admittedly

hard to accept. But, as can be seen by an examination of magnetic phenomena, the

kind of an effect that has been described actually does occur. Conventional physics
has no explanation for it. The perpendicular direction of the resultant is merely
dismissed as a strange effect. From the explanation in the preceding paragraph it
can be seen that the second law is not actually violated. The applied force does act in
accordance with this law, producing an acceleration in the direction of the force, but
that acceleration counterbalances an oppositely directed gravitational motion in the
dimension of the applied force, reducing the net speed in that dimension to zero. This
allows the gravitational motion in a perpendicular dimension, normally unobservable,
to manifest itself in the reference system.
Here is one of the places where it is necessary to recognize that scalar motion has
special characteristics of its own, and cannot be fully accommodated within the
narrower limits of the rules that apply to vectorial motion. This may be a difficult idea
for those who have grown up under the shadow of conventional scientific thought, but
whatever mental anguish this and the other necessary readjustments of thinking may
cause is a small price to pay for all of the clarification of ihe physical picture that is
aecomplished by recognition of the existence and properties of scalar motion.
As indicated in the introductory comments in Chapter I, the presentation in this
volume, which deals entirely with established facts and their necessary consequences,
is independent of the physical theory in whose context the phenomena involving
scalar motion are viewed. This type of motion unquestionably exists, but its role in
physical activity has not heretofore been subjected to a critical examination. The
objective of this volume is to fill this vacuum; to provide the basic information about
scalar motion that is part of the empirical knowledge of the universe around which
any theory must be constructed.
What the discussion thus far has done is to explore the consequences of recognizing
that the so-called fundamental forces of physics are, in fact, distributed scalar
motions, and to identify the modifications of current physical thought that are required
by reason of this correction of a canceptual mistake. The effect of these modifications
is largely explanatory rather than substantive. The treatment of gravitation in practical
application, for instance, remains essentially unchanged. But its physical properties
are now fully accounted for, and there is no longer any need to call upon ad hoc
assumptions, such as the assumption of a finite speed of propagation, that are contrary
to observed fact, or, like the assumption that space has the properties of a medium, are

conceptually unsupportable. In other cases, the result has simply been to provide an
explanation for something that has heretofore been unexplained, or has been regarded
as unexplainable. The electric charge, for example, no longer has to be accepted as a
given feature of the universe that is incapable of explanation in terms of more
fundamental concepts. The perennial question, What is an electric charge?, no longer
has to be dismissed as unanswerable. We can now reply that an electric charge is a
onedimensional distributed scalar motion.
Although some of the hitherto unknown physical phenomena discussed in the
preceding pages, such as scalar motion in the second and third dimensions, are
unobservable, they are, at least in a sense, within the boundaries of the reference
system. A further extension of the investigation discloses that scalar motion may also
transcend these limits, and take place under circumstances in which it is outside the
spatial reference system.
This introduces a question on the borderline between science and philosophy: the
issue as to the nature of reality. The orthodox view has been that the real world
exists in the space defined by the conventional reference system, and in the time
defined by a clock. On this basis it would be possible to classify as real the
unobservable phenomena that are located within the reference system, but anything
outside that system could not be accorded the real status. Heisenbergs atoms, which
he located in abstract multi-dimensional space therefore had to characterized as
phantoms. As he explained,
The idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same
manner as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them . . .
is impossible.46
Just how a real world can be fashioned out of components that are no more than
phantoms is a difficult question that most theorists have preferred to ignore.
Bridgman, one of the few that have addressed the issue, found it impossible to
resolve. His conclusion was that,
The world is not intrinsically reasonable or understandable; it acquires these
properties in ever-inereasing degree as we ascend from the realm of the very little to
the realm of everyday things.47

The clarification of the status of scalar motion now throws a new light on this subject.
Scalar motion has the same characteristics wherever we observe it. Since it obviously
must be classified as real in its manifestations within the spatial reference system, it
must also be real outside that system. This eliminates any justification that may
previously have existed for the prevailing view that equates the boundaries of reality
with the boundaries of the conventional spatiotemporal reference system.
In order to make the foregoing statements intelligible, it is necessary to explain what
is meant by outside the reference system. There is no space outside the spatial frame
of reference, as this is, in principle, unbounded (even if it is finite, as in Einsteins
theory). However, the ability of the spatio-temporal reference system, which
combines the spatial coordinate system with a clock, to represent motion (or to
represent it correctly) is strictly limited. We have already seen that the representation
in the reference system is limited to one of the three dimensions in which scalar
motion may take place. In the pages that follow, we will find that there are two
additional limitations. First, we will find that there is a minimum distance below
which the space-time relations take different forms. This accounts for the difficulties
that are being experienced in the realm of the very small, the problems that have led to
the belief that the entities of this region do not exist in any real sense. Second, the
representation of motion in the conventional spatio-temporal reference system is
subject to a speed limit.
Our next objective will be to explore the scalar speed range above this limit, the range
in which motion either cannot be represented at all in the conventional reference
system, or is not represented in its true character. No phenomena of this nature are
recognized by current science.
It follows that if they do exist, as the new information now avai\able indicates, there
must be some significant error in current physical thought. The existence of multidimensional scalar motion supplies the clue that is needed for identifying this error,
the nature of which will be discussed in the next chapter.
CHAPTER 4
Speed Limits

At this point it will again be advisable to emphasize the purely ,factual nature of the development
in this work. Perhaps this may seem to be unnecessary repetition, but many of the conclusions
reached in the preceding pages are in conflict with currently accepted theories and concepts
products of human thought and the general tendency will no doubt be to take it for granted that

the new conclusions are similar products. On this basis, the issue presented to the reader would
be the relative merits of the two lines of thought. But this is not the situation. This volume deals
exclusively with factual material. It describes a type of motion that is known to exist, but has not
heretofore been examined in detail. With the benefit of this more complete information it then
identifies some known phenomena, the true nature of which has heretofore been unknown, as
aspects of this scalar type of motion. All this is purely a matter of recognizing existing features of
the physical world. No theories or assumptions are involved.
Once the fact that scalar motion exists is recognized, the determination of its properties is a
straightforward operation, and the results thereof are equally factual. They do not depend, in any
way, on any physical theory, or point of view. As brought out in Chapter 2, one of the significant
properties of this type of motion is that, unlike vectorial motion, it is not restricted to one
dimension. In a threedimensional universe, scalar motion can take place coincidentally in all
three dimensions.
The relevance of the foregoing comments in the present connection is a consequence of the
nature of our next objective. We are now ready to take another step in the development of the
properties of scalar motion, and the results of this extension of knowledge will again conflict
with conclusions that have been reached from current theories. Scientists are understandably
reluctant to abandon theories of long standing if this can possibly be avoided. It is important,
therefore, to realize that we are not confronting the accepted theories with other theories, we are
confronting these current theories with some newly established facts.
Of course, it is always painful to find that some idea or theory to which we have long been
committed is wrong, and it is particularly distressing when the idea or theory is one that has been
successfully defended against strong attacks in the past. The situation that will be discussed in
this chapter is one of this nature, but the blow will be cushioned to some extent, as the rejection
of the prevailing ideas is not total. We do not find that the theory currently accepted is wrong; we
merely find that it claims too much. It has its field of applicability, but that field is considerably
narrower than has heretofore been believed.
The question that we will now address is what, if any, limitations exist on speed magnitudes. The
prevailing opinion is that the speed of light is an absolute maximum that cannot be exceeded.
This opinion is based (1) on experiments, (2) on a theoretical analysis by Einstein, and (3) on the
absence of any observation accepted as evidence of greater speeds.
The experiments, originally carried out by Bcherer and Kaufmann, and repeated by many other
investigators, involved accelerating electrons and other particles to high speeds by electrical
means. It was found that where the applied electric charge is held constant, the acceleration does
not remain constant, as Newtons Second Law of Motion, a = F/m, seems to require. Instead it is
found to decrease as a funetion of the speed at a rate indicating that it would reach zero at the

speed of light. The conclusion that was drawn from this experiment is that it is impossible to
accelerate a physical object to a speed greater than that of light.
On first consideration, this conclusion appears to bejustified, and it has not hitherto been
successfully challenged, but thejump from the particular case to the general principle has been
too precipitous. The electrons and other particles employed in the experiments can probably be
taken as representative of matter in general, but there is certainly no adequate justification for
assuming that the limitations applying to electrical processes are eclually applicable to physical
processes in general. What the experiments demonstrate, therefore, is not that it is impossible to
accelerate physical objects to speeds in excess of that of light, but that it is impossible to do
so by electrical means. Inasmuch as we have found, in the preceding pages, that electrical
processes are confined to the one dimension of motion that can be represented in the spatial
reference system, the results of this present investigation are consistent with this more limited
conclusion. They do not, however, preclude acceleration to higher speeds by some other process,
such as, for example, the sudden release of large quantities of energy by a violent explosion.
Turning now to the current theoretical view of the situation, Newtons Second Law of Motion,
F = ma, or a = F/ m, which is the form that enters into the present discussion, is a definition, and
therefore independent of the physical circumstances. It follows that the observed decrease in
acceleration at high speeds must be due either to a decrease in the force, F, or to an increase in
the mass, m, or both. There is nothing in the experimental situation to indicate which of these
alternatives is the one that actually occurs, so when Einstein formulated his theory of high speed
motion he had to make what was, in essence, a blind choice. However, charge is known to exist
only in units of a uniform size, and therefore has a somewhat limited degree of variability, while
mass is much more variable. For this reason a variation in the mass at high speeds appeared to be
the more likely alternative, and it is the one that Einstein selected.
The circumstances surrounding scientific developments tend to be forgotten in the course of
time, and it is quite generally accepted these days that Einstein must have had some reliable basis
for slecting mass as the variable quantity. An examination of the older textbooks will show that
this was not the understanding closer to Einsteins own time. The word if figures prominently
in the explanations given in these older texts, as in this quotation from one of them: If this
decrease is interpreted as an increase of mass with speed, charge being constant . . .48
The reason for this quite cautious attitude toward the assumption was a general realization at the
time that too little was known about the nature of electric charges to justify a firm decision in
favor of the variable mass alternative. The findings reported in this work now show that this
caution was amply justified. We can now see that it is not the charge that enters into the
acceleration equation; it is the force aspect of that charge (motion). A constant charge is a
constant motion, not a constant force. The existence of the motion results in the existence of a
force, a property of the motion, but there is no legitimate basis for assuming that the force aspect

of a constant motion is necessarily constant. On the contrary, it seems rather evident that the
ability of a motion to cause another motion is limited by its own magnitude.
The mathematical expression of Einsteins theory, stated in terms of the variable mass concept,
has been thoroughly tested, and is undoubtedly correct. Unfortunately, this validation of
the mathematical aspects of the theory has been generally accepted as a validation of the theory
as a whole, including the conceptual interpretation that Einstein gave to it. Acceptance of
mathematical validity as complete proof is an unsound practice that is all too prevalent in
presentday science. All complete physical theories consist of a mathematical statement, and
a conceptual statement, essentially an interpretation of the mathematics. Validation of the
mathematics does not in any way guarantee the validity of the interpretation; it merely identifies
this interpretation as one of those that could be correct.
It is much more difficult to validate the interpretation than to validate the mathematics. As soon
as it is shown that the mathematics are in full agreement with the observed facts, the
mathematical task is complete. Any other mathematical statement that is also in full agreement
with the facts is necessarily eduivalent to the first, and in mathematics eyuivalent statements are
merely alternate ways of saying the same thing. On the other hand, two different interpretations
of the same mathematics are not equivalent. The prevailing tendency to accept the first one that
comes along, without any rigorous inquiry into its authenticity, has therefore been a serious
obstacle to scientific progress. As expressed by Jeans in an oft yuoted statement:
The history of theoretical physics is a record of the clothing of mathematical formulae which
were right, or very nearly right, with physical interpretations which were often very badly
wrong.49
The situation that we are now examining is a good example of the kind of thing that Jeans was
talking about. Einsteins theory of high speed motion (that is, his mathematical expression ancl
his interpretation thereof) is accepted as having been confirmed by a large number of
experiments, and it is currently part of the dogma of conventional physics. The truth is,
however, that those experiments, no matter how great their number may have been, or how
conclusive their results, have confirmed only the mathematical aspects of the theory. The point
that now needs to be recognized is that the speed limitation does not come from these confirmed
mathematics; it comes from the untested interpretation.
If Einsteins assumption that the mass varies with the speed is valid, then the mass of a moving
object reaches infinity at the speed of light. A greater speed is thus impossible. But this is only
one of the possible interpretations of the mathematics, and neither Einstein nor anyone else has
produced any tangible evidence to support this interpretation. New tests of Einsteins theory
are continually being reported, but they are all tests of the mathematics of the theory, not tests of
the theory.

The findings of the scalar motion investigation agree with the mathematical expression of this
theory of Einsteins, as they must do, since physical facts do not disagree with other physical
facts, but they indicate that he made the wrong guess when he chose mass as the variable
quantity in the acceleration equation. It is a decrease in the effective force that accounts for the
decrease in acceleration at high speeds, not an increase in the mass. An interesting point in this
connection is that there is a universal law that bars the mass alternative, and would have
prevented this wrong choice, but unfortunately it has not been accepted to any significant degree
by science, even though it plays an important role in many other branches of knowledge. This
law, the law of diminishing returns, bars infinities actually it is one expression of the principle
that there are no infinities in nature and it is just as applicable to the acceleration equation as to
the many situations in the fields, such as economics, where it is officially recognized. This law
tells us that the ratio of the incremental output of a physical process to the incremental input does
not remain constant indefinitely, but eventually decreases, and ultimately reaches zero. On the
basis of this law, the effective force at high speed is not the force measured at low speed, but a
quantity that decreases with increasing speed.
In practical applications, such as the design of particle accelerators, for example, Einsteins
theory is used in the form of a mathematical equation, and his interpretation of the mathematics
does not enter into the result. Consequently, those who use the theory are not particularly
concerned as to whether the interpretation is correct or not, and it tends to be accepted without
any critical consideration. This casual acceptance of the interpretation by the physicists has
placed a roadblock in the way of gaining an understanding of phenomena in which speeds
greater than that of light are involved. Since, as we have found, the decrease in acceleration is
due to a reduction in the effective force of the electric charge, there is nothing in the
mathematical relations that would prevent acceleration to higher speeds where means of applying
greater forces are available. This conclusion, reached by correcting the interpretation of
Einsteins equation, without affecting the equation itself, is the same conclusion that we reached
when we subjected the experimental results to a critical consideration. The mathematics of
Einsteins theory describe the process of acceleration by means of a onedimensional (electric)
force. They do not apply to the maximum possible acceleration by other means.
Now let us see how the information about scalar motion presented in the preceding pages fits in
with these revised conclusions drawn from the acceleration experiments and Einsteins
mathematical development. There is nothing in the scalar motion development thus far that
requires a speed limit, but neither is there anything that precludes the existence of such a limit.
(The reason for its existence will be derived from some further properties of scalar motion that
will be examined in the next chapter.) The previous findings are therefore consistent with the
experimental evidence indicating a limit at the speed of light. It is evident, however, from what
has been learned about scalar motion that this limit applies to the speed represented in the spatial
reference system; that is, it is a onedimensional spatial limit. Einsteins theoretical conclusion
that the speed of light cannot be exceeded will therefore have to be modified to assert that

motion in space in the dimension of the re~rence system cannot take place at a speed greater
than that of light.
Here is a conclusion that agrees with all of the positive evidence. To complete the picture we will
also want to take a look at what is offered as negative evidence. The third line of argument
currently offered in support of an absolute limit at the speed of light is the asserted absence of
any evidence of greater speeds. As applied, however, this argument is meaningless, because
anything that might appear to be evidence of speeds beyond that of light is immediately
dismissed as unacceptable because it conflicts with Einsteins theory. For instance, measurements
that appear to indicate that some components of certain quasars are moving apart with speeds up
to eight or ten times the speed of light are not accepted as authentic, even though the astronomers
are becoming more and more confident of the validity of their measurements.
Aside from these controversial measurements, the significance of which will be considered later,
after some further relevant information has been developed, most of the evidence of speeds in the
higher ranges is in the form of effects that are not recognizable as products of greaterthanlight
speeds without the benefit of an understanding of the properties of scalar motion. Recognition of
this evidence by adherents of conventional physical theory therefore could not be expected. But
there is one type of actual measurement of speeds greater than the speed of light that should have
been recognized in its true light. This is the Doppler shift of the radiation from the quasars.
From the manner in which this shift in the frequency of the incoming radiation is produced, it
follows that the relative speed of the emitting object, in terms of the speed of light as unity, is
simply the ratio of the shift in wavelength to the laboratory wavelength. There was no
suggestion, prior to the discovery of the quasars that there might be any kind of a modification of
this relation at high speeds. But when quasar redshifts above 1.00 were measured, indicating
speeds in excess of the speed of light, the astronomers were unwilling to accept the fact that they
were measuring speeds that Einstein called impossible, so they applied a mathematical factor to
keep these speeds below the 1.00 level.
In two other cases, particle acceleration and the composition of velocities, it had been possible to
bring the preEinstein physical relations into conformity with the values derived by direct
measurement at high speeds by applying Einsteins reduction factor
(1v2/c2). In the acceleration case, the magnitudes calculated from Newtons Second Law of
Motion exceed the speed of light at high speeds, whereas the direct measurement approaches a
limit at that speed. The reduction factor is therefore applied to the calculatedmagnitudes to bring
them into agreement with the direct measurements. In the composition of velocities, the
magnitudes calculated from the relation of coordinate differences to clock time exceed the speed
of light, whereas the direct measurements approach a limit at that speed. The reduction factor is
therefore applied to the calculated magnitudes to bring them into agreement with the direct

measurements. The Doppler shifts above 1.00 again confronted the physicists with a situation in
which a speed greater than that of light was indicated. The same expedient was therefore
employed to keep the indicated quasar speeds within Einsteins limit.
The success of this mathematical expression in the earlier applications, together with the
preeminent status accorded to Einsteins limitation on speed evidently conspired to prevent any
critical consideration of the justification for applying the same mathematics to the Doppler shift,
as it can easily be seen that the Doppler situation is altogether different from the other two. ln
both of these other cases, the direct measurement is accepted as correct, and the adjustment
factor is applied to the results computed by means of certain relations that hold good at low
speeds to bring these calculated results into agreement with the direct measurements. In the
Doppler situation there is nothing that needs to be adjusted to agree with the direct measurement.
The only magnitude involved is the shift itself, and it is the direct measurement.
There is no valid reason for assuming that the Doppler shifts above 1.00 are anything other than
direct measurements of speeds greater than the speed of light. It should be noted, however, that
on the basis of the points brought out in the preceding discussion, the speed that can be
represented in the spatial reference system, the speed that causes change af spatial position, is
limited to the speed of light. The inerement above this speed, corresponding to the inerement of
the Doppler shift above 1.00, is a scalar addition to the speed represented in the reference
system. It appears in the Doppler shift because that shift measures the total magnitude of the
speed, not the change of spatial position.
The difference between this and the gravitational situation is significant. The gravitational
motion that is measured (as a force) takes place within the limits of the reference system. In this
case, therefore, the effective magnitude is fully represented in the reference system. The
gravitational motion in the other two scalar dimensions is not so represented, but it has no effect
in the dimension of the reference system. On the other hand, a speed in excess of that of light in
the dimension that is represented in the reference system is a physical magnitude in that
dimension, and even though it cannot be represented by a difference in the spatial coordinates, it
participates in any measurement of magnitudes, such as the Doppler shift, which is independent
of coordinate differences.
This capability of addition of magnitudes in different speed ranges, independently of the
limitations of the spatial reference system, is a general property of scalar magnitudes that has an
important bearing on many physical phenomena. As noted earlier, scalar magnitudes cannot be
combined in any way analogous to the addition of vectors, but any two scalar quantities in the
same dimension are additive. hhus the Doppler shift due to motion in one dimension above unit
speed (a scalar quantity) adds to the shift due to motion of the same object in the range below
unity (another scalar quantity), which is in the same dimension because the motion in the higher
speed range is an extension of the motion in the lower speed range.

Summarizing the foregoing discussion of the question as to the limitations on speed, the
evidence shows that it is not possible to accelerate material obiects to speeds in excess of that of
light by means of electrical forces. We have found that the electric charge is a onedimensional
distributed scalar motion. The meaning of the experimental results therefore is that the speed of
light is the limiting speed in one scalar dimension. The three scalar dimensions are independent,
and there is nothing to distinguish one from another. It follows that the limiting speed
in each dimension is the speed of light. Thus the limiting value of the total scalar speed of an
object is 3c: three times the speed of light. Consequently, there are three speed ranges of scalar
motion. One coincides with the range of speed of vectorial motion. Speeds in this range have
magnitudes 1x, where the speed of light is taken as unity, and x is some fraction thereof. If the
scalar motion is twodimensional, the speeds are 2x, while if the motion is threedimensional,
they are 3x. The reason for expressing the speeds in this particular manner will be explained in
Chapter 6.
The concept of an absolute limit at the speed of light, as laid down by Einstein, is thus erroneous.
His mathematics are correct, but they apply only to motion in one dimension, the dimension of
the conventional spatial reference system. The new information derived from the investigation of
scalar motion makes it evident that the general acceptance of Einsteins conclusion as to the
impossibility of speeds greater than that of light has been a monumental roadblock in the way of
scientific progress, probably second only to Aristotles conception of the nature of motion,
characterized by Alfred N. Whitehead as a belief which had blocked the progress of physics for
two thousand years. 50
There is, indeed, a rather close parallelism between the two cases. Both of these serious errors
were products of the outstanding scientists of their day: men with many notable achievements to
their credit, who had attained such a standing in the scientific community that disagreement with
their conclusions was, in effect, prohibited. Both of the conclusions now seen to be erroneous
were supported by what originally seemed to be adequate empirical evidence. But both
encountered increasing difficulties as physical understanding improved, and both ultimately
reached the point where they were maintained as orthodox scientific doctrine on the strength of
the authority of their originators, rather than on their own merits. This is generally recognized so
far as Aristotles theory is concerned, where we have the benefit of the historical perspective. It is
not so generally appreciated in Einsteins case, but a critical examination of current scientific
literature will reveal the remarkable degree to which his pronouncements are treated as
incontestable dogma, with a standing superior to the empirical facts.
The gravitational situation has already been discussed. As von Laue admits in the statement that
was quoted in Chapter 2, the repudiation of the results of observation is a result solely of the
theory of relativity. The situation with respect to the Doppler shifts of the quasars, mentioned
earlier in this chapter, is another instance where the experimental evidence has been
reconstructed to agree with Einsteins dictum. The true state of affairs in most other physical

areas is obscured by the ad hoc assumptions that are made to save the theory, but the prevailing
tendency to elevate Einsteins conclusions to an unchallengeable status is clearly illustrated by
the general readiness to throw logic and other basic philosophical considerations to the wolves
whenever they stand in the way of his pronouncements. Hans Reichenbach, for example, tells us,
This discovery of a physicist (the relativity theory) has radical consequences for the theory of
knowledge. It compels us to revise certain traditional conceptions that have played an important
part in the history of philosophy.51
Kurt Gdel similarly sees farreaching consequences following from Einsteins interpretation of
special relativity, even though it is well known that this is merely the current choice from among
a number of equally possible explanations of the mathematical results. M. B. Hesse points this
out in the following statement: There are some other logical questions raised by the theory of
relativity . . . because there are a number of alternative theories which all appear observationally
equivalent.52 On this slippery ground, Gdel finds unequivocal proof.
Following up the consequences (of the assertions of special relativity) one is led to conclusions
about the nature of time which are very far reaching indeed. In short, it seems that one obtains an
unequivocal proof for the view of those philosophers who deny the objectivity of change.53
Warren Weaver is ready to jettison logic to accommodate Einstein. He tells us that the close
observer finds that logic, so generally supposed to be infallible and unassailable, is, in fact,
shaky and incomplete. He finds that the whole concept of objective truth is a willothe
wisp. 54 Now where does this remarkable conclusion come from? A few pages later in the same
work Weaver answers this question. A major consequence of the developments in relativity and
quantum theory over the past half century, he says, has been the destruction of both ultimate
precision and ultimate objectivity, and he goes on to assert that presuppositions which have
neither a factual nor a logicalanalytical basis . . . enter into the structure of all theories and into
the selection of the group of `facts to be dealt with. 55
The revolutionary character of the apotheosis of the relativity theory in modern science cannot be
fully appreciated unless it is realized that this logic that Weaver and his colleagues propose to
sacrifice on the Einsteinian altar, along with the objective facts of gravitation, Doppler shifts, and
other physical phenomena, is one of the basic pillars of the scientific structure. As expressed by
F. S. C. Northrop:
In this third stage of inquiry, which permits the introduction of unobservable entities and
relations in order to solve ones problem, and which is called the stage of deductively formulated
theory, the use of formal logic is a necessity. For it is only by recourse to formal logic that one
can deduce consequences from ones hypothesis concerning unobservable entities and relations
and thereby put this hypothesis to an empirical and experimental test.56

The basic reason for the similarity in the history of the two theories under consideration is that
they are both products of invention, rather than of induction from factual premises. Aristotle was
an observer, a pure empiricist . . . exclusively inductive in his procedure, 57as described by
Northrop. But the amount of empirical knowledge that had been accumulated up to his time was
altogether inadequate for his purposes, and he found it necessary to resort to invention to fill in
the gap. In his theory of motion, the things that were in motion had to be accompanied by a
mover all the time,1 and the unseen hands mentioned in Chapter 1, that had to be in constant
operation to provide this service, were certainly inventions.
Einstein was definitely a protagonist of the inventive school of science. The axiomatic basis
of theoretical physics cannot be an inference from experience, but must be free invention, 58 he
tells us. Elaborating, in another connection, he further asserts:
The theoretical scientist is compelled in an increasing degree to be guided by purely
mathematical, formal considerations in his search for a theory, because the physical experience
of the experimenter cannot lift him into the regions of highest abstraction.59
Notwithstanding Einsteins brave words, physical science, in practice, resorts to invented
principles only when and where inductive results are not available. In Aristotles day relatively
few physical relationships of a general character had been definitely established, and invented
principles predominated. By this time, however, the subsidiary laws and principles of physical
science, including almost all of the relations utilized by the engineers, the practitioners in the
application of science, have been derived inductively from empirical premises. Einsteins
theories and other products of scientific invention have gained their present ascendancy in
the fundamental areas only because the previous system of inductive theory applicable to these
areas, that generally associated with the name of Newton, was unable to keep pace with the
progress of empirical discovery around the end of the nineteenth century.
The reason for this emergence of inventive theory only when there are gaps in the inductive
structure is that the inventive theories are inherently wrong, in their conceptual aspects. This is an
inevitable result of the circumstances under which they are able to gain acceptance. The
scientific problems that are responsible for the existence of gaps in the structure of inductive
theory do not continue to exist because of a lack of technical competence on the part of the
scientists who are trying to solve them, or because the methods available for dealing with them
are inadequate. The lack of success, where it exists, is due to the absence of some essential piece,
or pieces, of information. If the necessary information is available, there is no need for invention;
the correct theory can be derived by induction. Without the essential information it is not
possible to construct the correct theory by any method.
The gravitational situation is a good example. Newton derived a mathematical expression for the
gravitational effect. Subsequently it was found that the range of application of this expression

was limited, and Einstein formulated a new expression that presumably has a more general
applicability. Both of these were inductive products; that is, they were based on the mathematical
aspects of the results of observation and measurement. Neither of the investigators was able to
complete his theory by deriving an interpretation of his mathematics inductively. It can now be
seen that the reason for this failure was the lack of recognition of the existence of distributed
scalar motion. As long as the existence of this type of motion was unknown, the identification of
the nature of the gravitational effect required for the inductive formulation of the correct
gravitational theory was impossible. Newton, who was committed to the inductive approach, was
therefore unable to devise anycomplete theory (mathematical statement and interpretation
thereof). Without the essential item of information, Einstein was equally unable to formulate
the correct theory, but on the basis of his contention that the source of basic physical principles
must be free inventions of the human mind, he was at liberty to complete his theory by
inventing an explanation to fit the mathematical expression that he had derived.
Whether or not an inventive theory of this kind serves any useful purpose during the time before
the correct inductively derived theory becomes available is a debatable issue. So far as the
particular phenomena to which the theory is directly applicable are concerned, the conceptual
interpretation is essentially irrelevant. For practical purposes, the theory is applied
mathematically, and it makes little, if any, difference whether the user understands the real
significance of the mathematical operations. As Feynman observes, Mathematicians . . . do not
even need to know what they are talking about. 60 The conceptual interpretation of the
mathematics is important primarily because it is one of the essentials for an understanding of the
relations between physical phenomena. While a wrong interpretation may occasionally stimulate
a line of thought that leads in the right direction, it is much more likely to impede progress. The
justification for the construction and use of inventive theories is therefore highly questionable.
It would appear that the main purpose served by inventing a theory is to enable the scientific
community to avoid the painful necessity of admitting that they have no answer to an important
problem. What the inventive scientist is able to do, when his inductive counterpart is stymied, is
to construct a theory that is mathematically correct, and that meets some of the conceptual
requirements. Until the correct theory appears (or even for a time thereafter, if the Establishment
can maintain discipline), the inventive theory can stand its ground on the strength of the
assertions ( 1) that it produces the correct mathematical results (often claimed to be complete
verification), and (2) that the assertions of the theory have not been definitely disproved
(something that is very difficult to accomplish because of the free use of ad hoc assumptions to
avoid contradictions). The extent to which this preposterously inadeduate amount of support is
currently accepted as conclusive by a scientific community desperately anxious to have some
kind of a theory in each fundamental area is graphically illustrated by the description of the
prevailing attitude toward Einsteins theories in the preceding paragraphs. However, the fiction
can be maintained only for a limited time. Ultimately the inventive theories of Einstein and his
school, like the inventive theories of Aristotle, will accumulate too many ad hoc modifications

too many epicycles, we may say and they will have to give way to theories, derived
inductively, that are both mathematically and conceptually correct.
Inasmuch as the presentation in this work is purely factual, it does not offer any new inductive
theories to replace the inventive theories currently in vogue. It merety calls attention to a large
number of hitherto undiscovered, unrecognized, or disregarded physical facts, all of which the
theories of physics, inventive or inductive, as the case may be, will hereafter have to be prepared
to deal with. From now on, the requirements for acceptance of theories will be substantially
enlarged. No theory will be viabte unless it incorporates an acceptable explanation of scalar
motion and its conseyuences.
CHAPTER 5
Further Fundamentals

To the earliest thinkers whose ideas are known to us, the directly apprehended world
was always inferior to the vast unknown that, they believed, lay beyond it. When so
little was known as to the causes of physical phenomena, even the most trivial events
could be explained only on the basis of supernatural intervention. In the long march of
science from its beginnings more than three thousand years ago to the present era, one
after another of these events has been found to be explainable on purely physical
grounds. As a result, the pendulum has swung to the other extreme. The currently
prevailing opinion not only denies the existence of anything outside the directly
apprehended world, but places that world entirely within the limits of the conventional
spatiotemporal reference system. According to this present view, the universe
exists in threedimensional space, and in clock time.
Recognition of the existence of scalar motion makes this view of the universe
untenable. Vectorial motion is confined to the conventional reference system because
it is, by definition, motion relative to that system. But scalar motion, which has
magnitude only, and no inherent relation to the reference system (although, under
appropriate conditions, it may acquire such a relation by means of an independent
process of coupling), is not limited by the reference system. As we saw in the
preceding chapter, scalar motion extends into two additional speed ranges beyond the
onedimensional limit at the speed of light to which motion within the reference
system is subject. What we will now want to do is to examine the characteristics of
motion in these higher speed ranges. As an avenue of approach to this subject we will
consider the question of units.

It has been found experimentally that electric charge exists only in discrete units. As
we saw earlier, charge is simply a name for a onedimensional distributed scalar
motion. It has some properties that are not shared by all onedimensional scalar
motions, but these are properties of the distribution, the variable coupling to the
reference system, not inherent properties of the scalar motion itself. From the
standpoint of the inherent nature of the motion, all onedimensional scalar motions
are alike. It then follows that the limitation to discrete units applies to any one
dimensional scalar motion. Furthermore, there is no distinetion between scalar
dimensions. Consequently, the limitation applies to scalar motion in general. We thus
arrive at this general principle: Scalar motion exists only in discrete units.
This conclusion necessarily follows from the observed limitation of electric charge to
discrete units. As a necessary consequence of an observed fact, it is itself factual, and
does not require confirmation from other sources. Ample confirmation is, however,
available. There is substantial evidence for the existence of discrete units of
magnetism, twodimensional distributed scalar motion. The discrete nature of the
atoms and particles of matter, the objects that gravitate that is, experience three
dimensional distributed scalar motion has been recognized ever since the days of
Democritus. The photons of radiation produced by motion of these atoms and particles
are likewise discrete units.
The units of charge are uniform. The considerations previously discussed in relation to
the discrete nature of the units apply with equal force to the uniformity. We may
therefore extend the previous statement, and say that scalar motion exists only
in unifrm discrete units.
From one viewpoint, all physical facts have equal standing, inasmuch as a conflict
with any one of them brands a theory or belief as invalid, at least in part. However,
some of these facts have much more significant consequences than others, and can
legitimately be described as crucial facts. The existence of distributed scalar motion is
one of these. As has been demonstrated in the preceding pages, recognition of this fact
opens the door to a wide variety of significant advances in the understanding of
important physical phenomena. Furthermore, it sets the stage for recognition of other
facts, some of which have consequences that are sufficiently far reaching to justify
including these facts in the crucial category. The existence of multidimensional scalar
motion is one of those that is entitled to be so classified. As will be seen in the pages
that follow, the fact that we have just recognized that scalar motion exists in discrete

units only also belongs in this same class. It provides the key item of information that
we need in order to make it possible to explore the regions of the universe outside
(that is, independent of) the region that is capable of representation in the
conventional threedimensional spatial reference system.
Again, as in Chapter 4, it seems advisable to emphasize the purely factual nature of
the presentation, even at the risk of seeming unduly repetitious. A number of the
conclusions that will be reached by the factual development in the pages that follow
are identical with the conclusions reached in the previous theoretical investigation.
The discrete unit limitation, for instance, is one of the basic features of the theory of a
universe of motion, as set forth in the previous theoretical publications. Consequently,
the conclusions reached in this and the subsequent chapters from the application of
this limitation derived from factual premises are also produced in the theoretical
development of the motion concept. Because of this agreement on results of a
decidedly unconventional nature, there may be a tendency to take it for granted that
some theoretical considerations must have entered into the present development of
thought. This is not correct. The only way in which the theoretical study has entered
into the development in this volume is by providing clues as to where to look for the
facts. Of course, this is a significant contribution. In looking for previously
unrecognized facts, as in looking for buried treasure, it is extremely helpful to have a
map. But the status of what we find, in either case, is not affected in any way by the
amount of assistance that we were given toward finding it.
The previous investigation was purely theoretical. All conclusions were reached
entirely by application of logical and mathematical processes to the postulates of the
system, without introducing anything from experience. The objective of this present
volume, on the other hand, is to present the maximum amount of information
regarding the role of scalar motion in the physical universe that can be
derived without introducing any theoretical considerations, so that the information
about scalar motion will be available to all who are interested in the subject matter,
whether or not they are ready to go along with a drastic revision of physical
fundamentals.
The limitation of scalar motion to discrete units does not mean that this motion
proceeds in succession ofjumps. A uniform motion is a continuous progression at a
uniform rate. Because the motion is continous, there is a progression within each unit,
and one unit follows another without interruption. The discrete unit limitation imposes

two restrictions. First, the continuity of the progression can be broken only at
ajunetion between units. Fractional units are therefore impossible. Second, any
process taking place within a unit cannot carry forward into the next unit.
A chain is an analogous structure. It is composed of discrete units called links, yet it is
a continuous entity, not a mere juxtaposition of the links. There are no fractional links.
An incomplete link serves no purpose, and is not part of the chain. Properties such as
crystal structure do not carry forward from one link to the next. The analogy with
scalar motion in this respect could be made even more complete by electrically and
thermally insulating the links from each other, as the temperature and electrical
conditions existing in each link would then also be independent of those of its
neighbors.
The absence of fractional links in the chain does not prevent us
from identifying different parts of a link, or from utilizing fractions of a link for
purposes such as measurement. For example, we can identify the midpoint of a link,
and measure a distance of 10 links, even though there are no half links in the chain.
The same principles apply to the discrete units of scalar motion. We can deal with
positions and events within a unit on an abstract basis, even though they do not
actually exist independently of the unit as a whole.
Scalar motion, as we have seen, has no property other than magnitude. It is a relation
between a space magnitude and a time magnitude. Now we further find that these
magnitudes occur only in discrete units; that is, we are dealing only with integers.
Space and time, so far as they enter into scalar motion, are simply integral numbers of
units, reciprocally related, and not otherwise defined. Whether or not they have any
other properties in vectorial motion, or in any other connection, is a question that is
beyond the scope of this work, which is addressed to scalar motion only. In motion of
this type, neither space nor time has any properties other than those appertaining to its
status in motion, and time is reciprocally elated to space. It follows Lhat the
properties of scalar motion are simply the properties of reciprocals. These properties
are well known in mathematical terms. All that we need to do, therefore, in order to
describe the properties of scalar motion under any particular set of circumstances is to
translate the mathematical statement of these properties into the language applicable
to motion.

Those who are reluctant to accept the finding that time has the status of reciprocal
space in scalar motion, because it conflicts with their ideas as to the inherent nature of
time, should realize that those longstanding ideas are not scientifically based. This
new finding does not conflict with scientific views as to the nature of time, because
there are no such views. The nature of time has always been a mystery to science.
About all that is known is that time enters into the equations of physics as a variable,
and that in some way it moves by us, or we move through it, from the past, to the
present, and on into the future. The familiar expression the river of time is a
reflection of this subjective impression that we get from experience.
Presentday science accepts this vague subjective impression as the definition of time
for scientific purposes without examination, 61 as Richard Tolman puts it. R. B.
Lindsay admits that the notions of space and time employed by science are
primitive, undefined concepts, but contends that more precisely defined
constructs 62 can be developed, in some unspecified way, farther down the line.
Vincent E. Smith is indignant at the suggestion that scientists should be required to
define these concepts before using them. Surely, he says, mathematical physicists
are exempted from defining such realities as space and time and free to concentrate on
only their mathematical aspects. 63 Other investigators are beginning to realize that
this uncritical acceptance of a primitive, undefined concept of time as one of the
cornerstones of physical science is incompatible with good scientific practice, and are
expecting some changes. The following are typical comments:
And perhaps as the domain (of our experience) is broadened still further we may well
have to modify our conceptions of time (and space) yet more to enrich them, and
perhaps to change them radically.64(David Bohm)
Perhaps we are here on the edge of the discovery of a new law of physics that
determines how the other fundamental laws depend on time. !t is my feeling that such
a law must obviously contain time as one of its basic elements. 65 (G. L. Verschuur)
It is true that space and time appear to be very different. In contrast to the continuing
movement that characterizes time, as we observe it, space appears to be an entity that
stays put. But the clarification of the relation between space and time in scalar motion
throws a new light on the meaning of these observations. The key factor in the
situation is the status of unit speed.

The magnitude of a unit of scalar motion is one unit of space per unit of time; that is,
unit speed. And since scalar motion exists only in units, its magnitude (speed) on an
individual unit basis is always unity. However, this magnitude may be either positive
or negative, and it is therefore possible to generate net speeds differing from unity by
periodic reversals of the scalar direction. As noted in Chapter 1, a continuous and
uniform change of direction is just as permanent as a continuous and uniform change
of position.
In order to arrive at a negative speed, the reversal of direction must apply to only one
component (space or time). Coincident reversals of both components would leave the
quotient, the speed, positive. Thus a negative scalar motion is inward either in space
or in time, not both. Introduction of reversals of scalar direction in time reduces the
net time magnitude without altering the space magnitude, and thus inereases the
speed, the ratio of space to time. Similarly, introduction of reversals of scalar direction
in space reduces the net space magnitude without altering the time magnitude, and
thus inereases the ratio of time to space, the inverse speed.
From the foregoing it follows that the minimum amount of space that can be traversed
in one unit of time is one unit. Anything less than one unit would involve an integral
number of units of time per unit of space. This is not speed, but inverse speed, and it
cannot be produced by the kind of a process, reversal of scalar direction in time, that
produces speed. The minimum speed is therefore unity. Similarly, the minimum
inverse speed is likewise unity. In the familiar vectorial type of motion, on the other
hand, the minimum speed is zero. Here the condition of rest is zero speed, and
effective vectorial speeds are measured from this zero level. Now we see that in a
reciprocal speed system the condition of rest, the condition from which effective
scalar speed (or inverse speed) magnitudes extend is unity, not zero.
Unit speed is thus the natural reference level for scalar motion, the reference level to
which the scalar motion of the universe actually conforms. In other words, the
reference system for scalar motion is not our stationary spatiotemporal reference
system, but a system that is moving at unit speed relative to that stationary system.
Both space and time are moving. While now moves forward in the manner to which
we are accustomed, here is moving forward in exactly the same manner. There is no
distinetion between reciprocal integers.

What this means in practice is that any object that has no capability of independent
motion, and is not acted upon by any outside agency, so that it must remain in its
original position, retains its position in the natural reference system, the system
recognized by nature, not in the conventional fixed coordinate system, which is a
purely arbitrary system selected by human beings for their own convenience. Such an
object is carried outward at unit speed relative to the fixed reference system by the
motion of the natural system of reference. We are not conscious of the outward
progression of space, as we are of the progression of time, because the spatial
movement is ordinarily masked by an opposing gravitational motion of the aggregate
of matter from which we are doing our observing, but any object that is notsubject to
an appreciable gravitational effect, such as a photon, or a galaxy at an extreme
distance, is observed, or deduced by extrapolation, to be moving outward at unit speed
(which we can identify as the speed of light), as required by the conclusion that we
have just reached from purely factual premises.
We will want to follow the presentation of this evidence that space has the
characteristic property of time, the constant progression, with evidence that time has
the characteristic property of space, extension into three dimensions. This will require
development of another of the consequences of the reciprocal speed relation, and
before beginning discussion of this new subject matter it will be desirable to give
some further consideration to the question of the nature of reference systems, which
has already been introduced.
The reference system in general use, both by scientists and by the public at large, is an
arbitrary system. This arbitrary spatiotemporal system recognizes the scalar
progression of time, and treats time as continually moving forward at a rate indicated
by a clock. The observable spatial motions are mainly motions relative to some
particular object, or set of objects, and, for convenience, these objects are treated as
stationary for definition of the reference system. The surface of the earth is taken as
stationary in most common usage. For other purposes, the center of the earth is
assumed to be stationary, while the astronomers find it convenient to use still other
arbitrary fixed points.
The justification for the use of an arbitrary reference system of this kind is that the
only significant magnitudes under the circumstances of observation are the deviations
from the condition taken as a base for the reference system. In dealing with motion on
the surface of the earth, for example, we are not concerned with the movement of the

earth around the sun, or the movement of the solar system around the center of the
galaxy, in which all objects on the earths surface are participating. These motions are
irrelevant because they do not change the relative positions of the objects in which we
are interested. When we undertake to analyze fundamental motions, the situation is
quite different. In order to evaluate these motions, we must have a reference system
relative to which an isolated object with no inherent motion does not move.
The orthodox doctrine at present is that there is no such reference system, because, it
is contended, motion is relative, rather than being a specific deviation from some
motionless absolute base. There is no meaning in absolute motion, 66 is the assertion
of those who follow Einstein in this respect. But this view encounters serious
difficulties. The fixed stars do provide a background to which observations can be
referred. Indeed, those who attempt to explain away the various paradoxes to which
relativity theory is subject often call upon acceleration relative to the fixed stars 67 as
a way out of their difficulties. Richard Feynman likewise resorts to astronomy to
provide a fixed reference system, as in the following statement:
We cannot say that all motion is relative. That is not the content of relativity.
Relativity says that uniform velocity in a straight line relative to the nebulae is
undetectable.68
Werner Heisenberg offers this comment:
This is sometimes stated by saying that the idea of absolute space has been
abandoned. But such a statement has to be accepted with great caution . . The
equations of motion for material bodies or fields still take a different form in a
normal system of reference from another one which rotates or is in a nonuniform
motion with respect to the normal one. 69
The key to an understanding of this rather confused situation is a recognition of the
place of scalar motion in the picture. As long as motion is taken to be synonymous
with vectorial motion, all motion is, by definition, relative to something arbitrary,
and no absolute reference system can be defined. But the assumption that all motion is
vectorial motion is not valid. Scalar motion does exist, and it does have an absolute
datum level, or effective zero, at unit positive (outward) speed. When a negative scalar
motion at unit speed is superimposed on the basic unit positive speed, the net result is
a speed that is mathematically equal to zero (as distinguished from unit speed, which
is the physical datum, or condition of rest, the physical zero, we might say). A set of

objects with speeds of zero (mathematically) constitutes a reference system that is

absolute in nature, and is appropriate for use by the inhabitants of the sector of the
universe in which we live, although as indicated earlier, such a reference system is
capable of representing only a very limited portion of the total physical universe. The
distant astronomical objects, whose vectorial motions are negligible because of the
great distances intervening, constitute such a stationary system.
For analytical purposes, we need to recognize that the zero datum of this fixed system
is a composite, and that the datum level of the natural reference system is defined by
the onetoone spacetime ratio (speed) of the fundamental units. As seen in the
context of the fixed spatial coordinate system, the natural reference system appears as
a uniform outward progression of space coinciding with a uniform increase in the
registration on a clock. Thus, when no physical interaction is taking place, all objects
that appear stationary in a fixed reference system are, in fact, moving inward at unit
speed. Objects such as photons, that have no capacity of independent motion and must
remain in the same absolute location (the same location in the natural reference
system) in which they originate, are carried outward relative to the fixed reference
system, at this same unit speed, by the progression of space.
This is the background pattern of the scalar motions of the universe. The development
that follows, in which independent physical activity will be introduced, will
proliferate rapidly into a wide variety of significant conclusions, and unless the
successive steps in the development of thought are specifically noted, it may be hard
to believe that so many consequences would necessarily follow from such a limited
set of factual premises. It therefore needs to be emphasized at the outset that all of
these conclusions are so derived, without bringing in any assumptions or theories, and
that they all have the factual status.
The fundamental physical action of the universe is a result of the existence of
independent units of scalar motion, the net effect of which is to oppose the outward
progression of the natural reference system. If that outward motion continues
unimpeded, there can be no interaction between units. Nor can any interaction result
from independent motion in the outward direction superimposed on the outward
progression, as this, if possible, would merely accelerate the dispersal of the units. But
independent motion in the inward scalar direction is capable of bringing the units
close enough together to permit interaction. The requirement that the net motion of the
independent units must be directed inward means that the basic independent scalar

motion must have the inward scalardirection. This basic motion can be identified as
gravitation.
A gravitating object, moving outward by reason of the progression of the natural
reference system, and inward by reason of gravitation, may acquire additional
independent motions of a different character. As indicated earlier, the net resultant of a
combination of motions may be either a speed, which, on a onedimensional basis, is
one unit of space per n units of time, or an inverse speed, n units of space per unit of
time. (lntermediate values are produced by combination with units having the full
onetoone spacetime ratio.) A speed, 1/n, decreases the amount of space per unit
time below the normal unit ratio, thus causing a change of position in space, while the
time progression continues at the normal rate. Such motion is motion in space.
An important feature of a reciprocal system is that it is symmetrical around the unit
level. The temporal relations in scalar motion are therefore subject to the same general
considerations as the spatial relations, but recognition of this fact has been blocked by
erroneous ideas as to the relation of space and time. Up to about the beginning of the
present century it was generally believed that space and time are independent. The
increase in knowledge since then has revealed that this is incorrect, and that there is
actually some kind of a connection between the two. The current opinion is that one
dimension of time joins with three dimensions of space in some manner to form a
fourdimensional spacetime continuum. The role of time in this hypothetical four
dimensional structure is vague. In order to constitute an added dimension of the
spatial structure, time must be some kind of a quasispace, but just how its spatial
aspect is supposed to differ from ordinary space is not specified in current theory.
Actually, it is difficult to see how one dimension of an ndimensional structure could
differ from another in any way other than in magnitude, if the results of calculations
involving different dimensions are to have any meaning.
In any event, the discrete unit limitation leads to a quite different view of the space
time relation, as we have seen. Like the theory that calls for the propagation of the
gravitational effect through a mediumlike space, and the other theories that are in
conflict with the factsdisclosed by the scalar motion investigation, the four
dimensional spacetime concept will therefore have to be discarded. It should be
noted, however, that neither this nor the modifications of current thought required by
the findings reported in the earlier chapters amount to a wholesale rejection of
presentday physical theory. The fabric of that theory is such that there is only a

minimum amount of connection between its various parts. As described by Feynman,

the laws of physics are a multitude of different parts and pieces that do not fit
together very well.32 This absence of positive connections is, of course, a weakness
in the body of theory, but it is nevertheless advantageous in the present instance, as it
enables excluding those aspects of existing thought that are in conflict with the factual
results of the scalar motion investigation without affecting much of the remainder of
accepted theory.
Because of the symmetry around the unit speed level, the conclusions that were
reached with respect to scalar motion with speed 1/n also apply, in inverse form, to
motion with inverse speed 1/n, equivalent to speed n/1. This inverse speed increases
the amount of space per unit time; that is, it alters positions in time while the space
progression takes place at the normal rate. Motion at inverse speeds is thus motion in
time.
It is true that no evidence of such a property of time is now known to science.
However, all that this means is that the existing evidence is not currently recognized
as such. As we saw in
Chapter 2, it has been found that there is a serious discrepancy between the time
that is registered on a clock and the time that enters into the equations of motion.
Now we further find that the clock registers only the time of the progression of the
natural reference system, while the total time involved in motion from one location to
another includes the separation in time between the locations. This separation is
negligible at low speeds, but is significant at high speeds. Here is the alternative that
Einstein overlooked when he concluded that there is no other way of meeting the
situation disclosed by the measurements at high speeds but to abandon the concept of
absolute magnitudes.
Inasmuch as the universe is threedimensional (a fact of observation), position in
space is position in threedimensional space. The position in time that is altered by
motion in time is the same kind of a position, differing only in its reciprocal nature.
Motion in time has no direction in space, but it has a property that corresponds to
spatial direction, and can logically be called direction in time. Position in time is
therefore position in threedimensional time.
Here, then, we have demonstrated the other half of the proposition, stated earlier in
this chapter, that each of the components of motion has the principal property of the

other. The findings previously discussed showed that the principal characteristic of
time, its continual progression, is likewise a property of space. Now, by deduction
from factual premises, it has been shown that the principal characteristic of space, its
threedimensional extension, is also a property of time.
Because of the particular location from which we view physical events, the two
situations appear quite different. We observe the time progression directly, and detect
the independent motion in time only by its effect on the magnitudes of certain
physical quantities. In the spatial situation the reverse is true. We observe the
independent motion in space directly, and detect the space progression only by its
effect on some physical quantities. The reason for this difference is that we who are
observing these phenomena exist in a sector of the universe in which changes of
position take place in space. In this material sector, as we will call it, all material
objects are, as we know from observation, moving inward gravitationally in space.
This inward gravitational motion counterbalances the outward progression of the
natural reference system, and leaves us approximately at rest relative to a fixed spatial
coordinate system. From this vantage point we are able to detect the independent
motion in space, but we cannot observe the space progression directly.
An important consequence of the existence of motion in threedimensional time on a
basis coordinate with that of motion in threedimensional space is that there is an
inverse sector of the universe, the cosmic sector, we will call it, similar to our own
material sector, but differing in that space and time are interchanged. If there are
observers in this sector, they can observe the space progression and the independent
motion in time directly, but they can detect the time progression and the independent
motion in space only by their effect on the magnitudes of certain physical quantities.
This is a region of the universe of the kind mentioned earlier, one that is not capable
of representation in the conventional spatial reference system. One dimension of the
motion in this cosmic sector could, however, be represented in a temporal reference
system analogous to the spatial system. Such a reference system would consist of a
threedimensional pattern of time coordinates, in which changes of position in time
take place during the continuous outward progression of space, measured by a device
analogous to a clock.
In this present discussion we are dealing with scalar motion only, but it can be
deduced that at least some of the vectorial motions that take place within our familiar

spatial reference system are duplicated in the cosmic sector. Without extending the
investigation to the details of vectorial motion, which, as matters now stand, is not
feasible without a theoretical analysis, we cannot say that all of the vectorial
phenomena of the material sector are so duplicated, but in view of the reciprocal
relation between space and time in scalar motion, we can say that this is true of all
scalar motion phenomena, including gravitation. The existence of gravitation requires
the existence of matter in corresponding amounts. Thus matter, too, is duplicated in
the cosmic sector. Inasmuch as the probability of a deviation in the temporal direction,
speed n/1 , from the scalar speed datum, 1/1 , is equal to the probability of a deviation
in the spatial direction, speed 1/n, the quantities of all of these entities that do exist in
the cosmic sector are commensurate with the quantities of the corresponding entities
in the material sector. The cosmic sector is thus coextensive with the material sector,
whether or not it is an exact duplicate (another point that requires a theoretical
analysis). Here, then is a second fullscale division of the universe.
This is a farreaching conclusion of great importance, one that, at a single stroke,
doubles the size of the universe. The general reaction to a new idea of this magnitude
is one of considerable skepticism, but the existence of an antiuniverse is clearly
suggested by a number of recent additions to physical knowledge, and has been the
subject of numerous speculations. As expressed by Asimov:
Somewhere, entirely beyond our reach or observation, there may be an antiuniverse
made up almost entirely of antimatter.70
The results of the investigation reported herein have now identified the reality behind
these speculations. The existence of this anti (actually inverse) sector of the
universe is a necessary consequence of the facts about scalar motion that have been
ascertained in the course of an intensive investigation, and presented in the preceding
pages. Furthermore, the key conclusions in this factual line of development are
corroborated by observational evidence. Direct observation of the inverse phenomena
is not possible because the cosmic sector is almost entirely outside our observational
range. The reason for this is that the entities and phenomena of that sector are
distributed throughout threedimensional time. The various physical processes to
which matter is subject alter positions in space independently of positions in time, and
vice versa. As a result, the atoms of a material aggregate, which are contiguous in
space, are widely dispersed in time, while the atoms of a cosmic aggregate, which are
contiguous in time, are widely dispersed in space.

It should be noted that the dispersion takes place in the space and time of the
respective threedimensional reference systems, and does not alter the position in the
spacetime progression (the outward motion of the natural reference system). The
limitation of the concentration of matter to either space or time, not both, effectively
separates the material (space) sector of the universe from the cosmic (time) sector. We
of the material sector are moving through threedimensional time in one scalar
dimension a onedimensional line of progression and as a consequence, only a
relatively small proportion of the cosmic phenomena eome within the range that is
accessible to us. Furthermore, since the components of cosmic aggregates are
contiguous in time, not in space, the cosmic phenomena that we do encounter are not
in the forms in which they can be recognized as counterparts of the known phenomena
of the material sector. Physical phenomena are primarily interactions of aggregates, or
of concentrated radiation from aggregates, and the aggregates of one sector are not
recognizable as such in the other.
We can, however, deduce the forms in which certain phenomena of the cosmic sector
will appear in our reference system, and we can then compare these deductions with
the results of observation. We can deduce, for instance, that electromagnetic radiation
is being emitted from an assortment of sources in the cosmic sector, just as it is here in
the material sector. Radiation moves at unit speed relative to both types of fixed
reference systems, and can therefore be detected in both sectors regardless of where it
originates. Thus we receive radiation from cosmic stars and other cosmic objecis just
as we do from the corresponding material aggregates. But these cosmic objects are not
aggregates in space. They are randomly distributed in the spatial reference system.
Their radiation is therefore received in space at a low intensity and in an isotropic
distribution. Such a background radiation is actually being observed. It is currently
attributed to remnants of the Big Bang, but there is no real evidence as to how it
originates. The significant fact in the present connection is that the conseyuences of
the existence of scalar motion in discrete units require a radiation of this nature.
The same considerations also account for the apparent absence of antimatter in the
expected quantities. All current physical theories (including the theory of a universe of
motion) incorporate symmetries from which it can be concluded that matter in the
ordinary form and iri some anti form should exist in approximately equal quantities.
There is no observational evidence of the existence of any antimatter aggregate, and
the question, Where is the antimatter?, has become a serious issue for the physicists

and the astronomers. This present development supplies the answer. The matter of the
cosmic sector is inversely related to the matter of the material sector; it is the missing
antimatter. Since the cosmic sector is the inverse of the material sector, and
coextensive with it, cosmic matter is just as plentiful in the universe as a whole as
ordinary matter, but because it is aggregated in time rather than in space, we do not
meet it in the form of stars, or galaxies, or even small lumps. We meet it only one
atom at a time, and because of the very small portion of the threedimensional
expanse of time that ever comes within our observational range, we encounter only a
limited number of these atoms. These are the cosmic rays. The answer to the
antimatter question then is: It exists, but most of it is outside our range of observation.
Antimatter itself is accepted as a reality. All current physical theories define the
structure of matter in such a way that the units atoms and particles of which the
material aggregates in our environment are composed are paralleled by a series of
similar units of an anti nature. Some of the less common observed units have been
identified as members of this antimatter class, and the existence of aggregates of
antimatter is asserted by most theories, although there is no observational evidence of
such aggregates. Since matter is one of the principal features of the known physical
universe, the general agreement as to the existence of antimatter goes a long way
toward acceptance of an antiuniverse, such as the inverse sector that we find exists.
The reciprocal relation between space and time in scalar motion, from which the
conclusions outlined in the foregoing paragraphs are derived, is simply the relation
between the numerator and denominator of a fraction, and it is incontestable, but it is
worthwhile mentioning that the reciprocity clearly does hold good in the only relation
between space and time that is actually known observationally: the relation in motion
itself. In motion, more space is the eduivalent of less time. It makes no difference
whether we travel twice as far in the same time, or take half as much time to travel the
same distance. The effect on the speed, the measure of the motion, is the same in both
cases. The significance of this point has been obscured to some extent by the fact that
direction, in our ordinary experience, is a property of space only, and this seems to
distinguish the space aspect of motion from the time aspect. Recognition of the
existence of scalar motion changes this situation, as it shows that vectorial direction is
not an essential property of motion. When it is realized that there are some motions
without an inherent direction, and some that have direction in space, the conclusion
that there are still others that have direction in time follows duite naturally.

Although the concept of threedimensional time, and the many important

conseduences that result from its existence, may seem to involve a major departure
from previous scientific thought, a review of the progress in fhis field in the past
hundred years shows that the thinking of the scientific profession has been gradually
moving in this direction. As in some of the problems discussed earlier, the first step
was taken by Einstein. Before his day, it was generally agreed that the time applicable
in one location is applicable everywhere, and under all conditions. Einstein found that
this led to inconsistencies under some conditions, particularly at high speeds. He
therefore rejected the idea of universal simultaneity, and introduced the assumption
that two events simultaneous in one system of coordinates are not simultaneous in a
relatively moving system. On the basis of this hypothesis, the rate of progression of
time, instead of being constant, varies with the speed of movement.
Many of those who have accepted Einsteins view of the relativity of simultaneity, and
have tried to explain it in textbooks orotherwise, have (perhaps unknowingly)
improved upon the original ideas, and have come very close to seeing the situation in
the light in which it now appears as a result of the findings of the scalar motion
investigation. For instance, Marshall Walker puts the case in this manner:
It had been assumed that an absolute time existed such that any timers anywhere could
be synchronized with it. Nature was pointing out most emphatically that such absolute
time does not exist. We will see later that it is as nonsensical to expect in general to
find the same time at two different places as it is to expect to find the same point
at two different places.71
Here Walker draws an analogy between the point (that is, location in space) at a
place, and the time (that is, location in time) at a place. The analogy thus
recognizes that there are locations in time, just as there are locations in space. It
follows that there is a difference in time between any two such time locations. All this
is in accord with the findings described in the preceding pages. But Walker stopped
here and did not take the next logical step, recognition of the fact that the differences
in time between the various locations are independent of the time registered on a
clock.
Identification of the properties of scalar motion now reveals that the true explanation
of the difference in time between stationary and moving systems is not that
simultaneity is relative, but that two different time components are involved.Clock

time is a measure of the time progression, and since this is simply the outward
movement of the natural frame of reference, all locations in the universe are at the
same stage of the progression. Thus the preEinstein view of time is correct to this
extent. The time component of the progression of the natural reference system
conforms to Newtons view of the nature of time in general. The problems that have
arisen in applying clock time to high speed processes are not due to any variability in
clock time itself, but to the fact that the total time entering into these processes
includes an additional component of an indepenent nature: the difference in time
between the locations that are involved. The reyuirement in Einsteins theory that the
clock must indicate the total time amounts to a demand that this device, which
performs one operation (measuring the relative motion of the two reference systems)
when stationary, must take on an additional task of a different kind (measuring the
difference in time between locations) when it is moving.
The possibility of motion in time has been a subject of speculation for centuries, and
is a favorite in the science fiction field. It is generally rejected by scientists, not
because there is any actual evidence that rules it out, but because this idea conflicts
with the subjective impression of time as a continual flow. The option of rejection is
no longer open. The existence of motion in time is now seen to be a necessary
consequence of observed physical facts, and it is therefore itself factual. The status of
scalar motion as a reciprocal relation between integers requires the existence of a
system of scalar motions in time symmetrical with the scalar motions in space. Motion
in time is now one of the known features of the universe with which all theories and
all individual viewpoints must come to terms.
It should be noted, however, that the kind of motion in time, or time travel, that the
science fiction writers envision, and that most individuals think of when the subject is
mentioned, is movement along the line of the scalar progression; that is, travel to an
earlier or later era. In the light of the findings of this work, time travel of that nature is
impossible. The time progression is a result of the motion of the natural reference
system relative to the fixed reference system, and it is therefore not subject to any
kind of modification. The motion in time that is being discussed here involves a
change of position in threedimensional time independent of, and coincident with, the
change of time position due to the progression of the natural reference system. It is
analogous to the change of position within one of the distant galaxies due to motion in

space, while the time registered on a clock is analogous to the space traversed in the
recession of the galaxy.
The possibility of returning to the time and place of a past event, one of the favorite
goals of the time travel enthusiasts, is definitely excluded. We are already aware
that this objective cannot be accomplished by travel in space. It is possible, in
principle, to return to any specified point in space, but we cannot return to the same
place at the same time. We can only reach it at some later time. Travel in time is
subject to exactly the same kind of a limitation (another result of the reciprocal
relation). It is possible, in principle, for an object capable of existing at the speeds of
the cosmic sector to return to any specified point in time by means of time travel, but
this point cannot be reached at the same place. It can only be reached at some more
distant location.
CHAPTER 6
The General Picture

Translation of the mathematical properties of reciprocals into the physical terms

applicable to scalar motion, a reciprocal relation between space and time magnitudes,
in the preceding chapter revealed that there necessarily exists an inverse sector of the
universe in which the scalar motions of our familiar material sector are duplicated in
inverse form with space and time interchanged. The phenomena of one dimension of
the inverse type of motion can therefore be represented in a threedimensional
temporal reference system corresponding to the threedimensional spatial reference
system in which spatial motion is customarily represented. Our next undertaking will
be to extend our consideration of the properties of reciprocals to an investigation of
the intermediate regions between the regions represented in the two types of three
dimensional reference systems.
For this purpose we will need to consider the manner in which the primary scalar
motions are combined. As noted earlier, the photons of radiation have no capability of
independent motion, and are carried outward at unit speed by the progression of the
natural reference system, as shown in (1), Diagram A. All physical objects are moving
outward in the same manner, but those objects that are subject to gravitation are
coincidentally moving inward in opposition to the outward progression. The
information developed from the investigation of scalar motion does not indicate the
exact nature of the gravitating objects, which we identify from observation as atoms

and subatomic particles, but for present purposes this knowledge is not essential.
When the gravitational speed of such an object is unity, and equal to the speed of
progression of the natural reference system, the net speed relative to the fixed spatial
reference system is zero, as indicated in (2). In (3) we see the situation at the
maximum gravitational speed of two units. Here the net speed has reached 1, which,
by reason of the discrete unit limitation, is the maximum in the negative direction.
DIAGRAM A
Motion

In

Out

Net

(1)

Photon

Progression

|>

+1

(2)

At grav.

Progression

|>

limit

Gravitation

At maximum

Progression

gravitation

Gravitation

At zero

Progression

net speed

Gravitation

(3)

(4)

(5)

<|
|>
<|
|>

<|

Translation

|>

At unit

Progression

|>

net speed

Gravitation
Translation

+1

<|
|>

An object moving with speed combination (2) or (3) can acquire a translational
motion n the outward scalar direction. Ths s the type of motion with which we will
be concerned in the remainder of this volume. One unit of the outward translational
motion added to combination (3) brings the net speed relative to the fixed reference
system, combination (4), to zero. Addition of one more translational unit, as in
combination (5), reaches the maximum speed, +l, in the positive scalar direction. The
maximum range of the equivalent translational speed in any one scalar dimension is
thus two units.
As indicated in Diagram A, the independent translational motions with which we are
now concerned are additions to the two basic scalar motions, the inward motion of
gravitation and the outward progresson of the natural reference system. The net speed

after a given translational addition therefore depends on the relative strength of the
two original components, as well as on the size of the addition. That relative strength
is a funetion of the distance. The dependence of the gravitational effect on distance is
well known. What has not heretofore been recognized is that there is an opposing
motion (the outward progression of the natural reference system) that predomnates at
great dstances, resultng n a net outwardmotion.
The outward motion (recession) of the distant galaxies is currently attributed to a
different cause, the hypothetical Big Bang, but this kind of an ad hoc assumption is no
longer necessary. Clarification of the properties of scalar motion has made it evident
that this outward motion is something in which all physical objects participate. The
outward travel of the photons of radiation, for instance, is due to exactly the same
cause. This is a significant point because no tenable explanation of this phenomenon
has heretofore been available, and the conclusion derived deductively from the new
facts discovered in the scalar motion investigation fills a vacuum in the existing
structure of physical theory. Einstein is generally credited with having supplied an
explanation, but actually he conceded that he was baffled. In one of his books he
points out that this is an extremely difficult problem, and he concludes that
Our only way out . . . seems to be to take for granted the fact that space has the
physical property of transmitting electromagnetic waves, and not to bother too much
about the meaning of this statement.72
Objects, such as the galaxies, that are subject to gravitation, attain a full unit of net
speed only where gravitation has been attenuated to negligible levels by extreme
distances. The net speed at the shorter distances is the resultant of the speeds of the
two opposing motions. As the distance decreases from the extreme values, the net
outward motion likewise decreases, and at some point, the gravitational limit, we will
call it, the two motions reach equality, and the net speed is zero. lnside this limit there
is a net inward motion, with a speed that increases as the effective distance decreases.
Independent translational motions, if present, modify the resultant of the two basic
motions.
Aggregates of matter smaller than the galaxies are under the gravitational control of
larger units, and do not exhibit the same direct connection between distance and net
speed that characterizes the galaxies. The same two opposing basic motions are,
however, effective regardless of the size of the aggregate, and the equilibrium to

which they lead can be recognized in a number of astronomical phenomena. The

globular star clusters are a good example. These clusters are huge aggregates of stars,
up to a million or more, in a nearly spherical structure, that are observed in the
outlying regions of the larger galaxies. No viable explanation has heretofore been
found for the continued existence of such a cluster. Only one force is known to be
applicable, that of gravitation, and an equilibrium cannot be established without the
presence of some equally powerful antagonist. Rotational forces often play the
antagonist role in astronomy, but there is little rotation in these clusters. A dynamic
equilibrium, as in a gas, has also been suggested, but a gas sphere is not a stable
structure unless it is confined. On the basis of what is now known, the cluster should
either dissipate relatively quickly, or collapse into one central mass. It does neither.
Since there is no explanation available, the whole issue has been shelved by the
astronomers for the time being.
The outward progression of the natural reference system now supplies the missing
ingredient. Each star is outside the gravitational limits of its neighbors, and therefore
has a net outward motion away from them. Coincidentally, however, all stars are
subject to the gravitational effect of the cluster as a whole. In a relatively small cluster
the inward gravitational motion toward the center is not sufficient to hold the cluster
together, but as the size of the cluster increases, the gravitational effect on the outer
stars increases correspondingly. In a very large aggregate, such as a globular cluster,
the net motion of the outer stars is inward, acting against the outward motion of the
inner stars, and confining all stars to equilibrium positions.
Once the nature of the cluster equilibrium is understood, it is evident that the same
considerations apply to the galaxies, although the rotational forces in these more
complex structures modify the results. The existence of the scalar motion equilibrium
accounts for some otherwise unexplained properties of the galactic structure. For
instance, the minimum observed separation between stars in the outer regions of the
Galaxy (aside from that in double or multiple star systems) is more than two light
years, an immense distance that is inexplicable without some specific obstacle to a
closer approach. The existence of an equilibrium distance similar to that in the
globular clusters now provides the explanation. The fact that the stars occupy
equilibrium positions rather than moving freely in interstellar space also gives the
galactic structure the characteristics of a viscous liquid, which explains a number of

effects that have heretofore been difficult to understand, such as the confinement of
quantities of high energy matter in the central regions of certain galaxies.
The units of translational motion that are applied to produce the speeds in the higher
ranges are outward scalar units superimposed on the motion equilibria that exist at
speeds below unity, as shown in combination (5), Diagram A. The twounit maximum
range in one dimension involves one unit of speed, s/t, extending from zero speed to
unit speed, and one unit of inverse speed, t/s, extending from unit speed to zero
inverse speed. At this point it will be convenient to identify inverse speed as energy.
This identification plays no part in the development of thought in the remainder of this
work, and anyone who is inclined to question it can simply read inverse speed
wherever energy appears in the subsequent discussion. The reason for using the
energy designation is to keep the terminology of this work uniform with that of the
previous theoretical publications. As has been emphasized repeatedly in the foregoing
pages, this work is purely factual, and independent of any theory, but the conclusions
reached herein are identical, as far as they go, with the corresponding results of the
theoretical investigation. Inasmuch as these factual conclusions conflict with currently
accepted physical theory in many respects, they constitute strong evidence in favor of
the validity of the theory of a universe of motion. Many readers of this volume will no
doubt wish to examine the published descriptions of that theory, and to facilitate such
an examination it is desirable to use the same terminology that was employed in the
theoretical publications.
For the benefit of those who may feel that the use of the term energy in this
significance is definitely ruled out by a conflict with the kinetic energy equation, in
which the energy varies as the syuare of the velocity, rather than being inversely
related, it should be noted that the energy does not vary with v 2 alone, but with mv2.
As we found earlier, mass is a measure of a distributed scalar motion. Thus mv 2 is a
compound motion, a motion of a motion. Energy, in this context, is velocity of a mass.
Since we are not undertaking to develop a theory of motion in this work, we are not in
a position to establish the ecluivalence of this compound motion and the inverse of
simple scalar motion, but the status of mv 2 as a compound motion means that there is
nothing in presentday physical theory (which does not recognize this kind of motion)
to indicate that the presence of the v2 term in the energy equation is inconsistent with
the identification of inverse speed as energy. This is all that it is necessary to know for
present purposes.

Unit speed and unit energy are equivalent, as the spacetime ratio is 1/1 in both cases,
and the natural direction is the same; that is, both are directed toward unity, the datum
level of scalar motion. But they are oppositely directed when either zero speed or zero
energy is taken as the reference level. Zero speed and zero energy in one dimension
are separated by the equivalent of two full units of speed (or energy) as indicated in
this diagram:
DIAGRAM B

In the foregoing paragraphs we have been dealing with full units. In actual practice,
however, most speeds are somewhere between the unit values. Since fractional units
do not exist, these speeds are possible only because of the reciprocal relation between
speed and energy, which makes an energy of n/1 equivalent to a speed of 1/n. While a
simple speed of less than one unit is impossible, a speed in the range below unity can
be produced by addition of units of energy to a unit of speed. For reasons that require
a theoretical explanation, and are therefore beyond the scope of this factual
presentation, the quantity 1/n is modified by the conditions under which it exists in the
spatial reference system, and appears in a different mathematical form, usually
1/n2 (actually [ l / n]2).
In this connection, it may be well to point out that this work does not undertake to
supply the reasons why things are as they are that is the task of fundamental theory.
Where the reasons are necessary consequences of known facts, they are, of course,
included with the other factual material, but otherwise the results of observation are
accepted as they are found. In the case now being considered, the second power
expression, 1/n2, is well established empirically, appearing in numerous
observationally verified relations.
As noted earlier, unit speed and unit energy are oppositely directed when either zero
speed or zero energy is taken as the reference level. The scalar direction of the
equivalent speed 1/n2 produced by the addition of energy is therefore opposite to that
of the actual speed, and the net speed in the region below the unit level, after such an
addition, is 11/n2. Motion at this speed often appears in combination with a motion
11/m2 that has the opposite vectorial direction. The net result is then

1/n21/m2, an expression that will be recognized as the Rydberg relation that defines
the spectral frequencies of atomic hydrogen the possible speeds of the hydrogen
atom.
The net effective speed 11/n2 inereases as the applied energy n is inereased, but
inasmuch as the limiting value of this quantity is unity, it is not possible to exceed unit
speed (the speed of light) by this inverse process of adding energy. To this extent, we
can agree with Einsteins conclusion. However, his assertion that higher speeds are
impossible is incorrect, as there is nothing to prevent the direct addition of one or
two full units of speed in the other scalar dimensions. As we saw in Chapter 4, this
means that there are three speed ranges, identified in that chapter as 1x, 2x, and 3
x.
Because of the existence of three speed ranges with different space and time
relationships, it will be convenient to have a specific terminology to distinguish
between these ranges. In the subsequent discussion we will use the terms low
speed and high speed in their usual significance, applying them only to the region of
threedimensional space, the region in which the speeds are 1x. The region in which
the speeds are 2x that is, above unity, but below two units will be called the
intermediate region, and the corresponding speeds will be designated as intermediare
speeds. Speeds in the 3x range will be called ultra high speeds.
Inasmuch as the three scalar dimensions are independent, the twounit range between
zero speed and zero energy applies to each of these three dimensions individually.
Thus the total separation between zero speed and zero energy on the full three
dimensional basis is six units of speed (or energy). The midpoint that divides the
material (space) sector from the cosmic (time) sector is three units. In practice,
however, neither net speed nor net energy exceeds the twounit level by any
significant margin, because of the gravitational effects. This is illustrated in Diagram
C, which shows the relations between the speeds and energies of the two sectors.
DIAGRAM C
SCALAR UNITS OF SPEED AND ENERGY
1. Material sector
2.

at s=0
at s>1

0
1

1
2

2
3

3. Natural system
4.
5.

Cosmic sector

0
at t>1
at t=0

(2)

(1)

(2)
(1)

(1)

(3)

(3)
(2)

(0)

The middle line in this diagram (number 3) shows the total speeds and energies (in
parentheses), with 3 units of either speed or energy as the midpoint. Where gravitation
is absent, as it is (on the individual mass unit basis) at any distance above that
corresponding to unit speed, or any inverse distance above that corresponding to unit
energy (lines 2 and 4), the effective speeds are the same as in line 3. The upper (1) and
lower (5) lines show the net values with gravitation included.
The significance of this diagram is that it demonstrates that the effective maximum net
speed (or energy) is not three units, the midpoint between zero speed and zero energy,
but two units. We know from observation that at the normal (low) speeds of the
material sector the spatial density of matter is great enough to subject all aggregates to
gravitational effects. In view of the reciprocal relation, we can deduce that the same is
true of the density in time in the cosmic sector. Motion in space does not change the
density in time, and vice versa. It follows that when the net spatial speed (translational
less gravitational) reaches 2 units (line 2), gravitation in time becomes effective, and
the motion is at the (3) level on the energy basis (line 5).
Summarizing the foregoing discussion, we may say that the physical universe is much
more extensive than has hitherto been realized. The region that can be accurately
represented in a spatial frame of reference is far from being the whole of the universe,
as conventional science assumes that it is. There is another equally extensive, and
equally stable, region that is not capable of representation in any spatial reference
system, but can be correctly represented in a threedimensional temporal reference
system, and there is a large, relatively unstable, transition zone between the two
regions of stability. The phenomena of this transition zone cannot be represented
accurately in either the spatial or temporal reference systems.
Furthermore, there is still another region at each end of the speedenergy range that is
defined, not by a unit speed boundary, but by a unit space or time boundary. In large
scale phenomena, motion in time is encountered only at high speeds. But since this
inversion from motion in space to motion in time is purely a result of the reciprocal
relation between space and time, a similar inversion also occurs wherever the
magnitude of the space that is involved in a motion falls below the unit level. Here

motion in space is not possible because less than unit space does not exist, but
the equivalent of a motion in space can be produced by means of a motion in time,
since an energy of n/1 is eyuivalent to a speed of 1/n. This region within one unit of
space, the time region, we may call it, because all change that takes place within it is
in time, is paralleled by a similar space region at the other end of the speedenergy
range. Here the equivalent of a motion in time is produced inside a unit of time by
means of a motion in space.
As we have just seen, in connection with the combination of speeds and energies to
produce net speeds below unity, the mathematical expression of the speed equivalent
of an energy magnitude may take a form that differs from the expression of the
corresponding speed. This difference in the mathematics, together with the
substitution of energy for speed, accounts for the difficulty, mentioned in Chapter 3,
that conventional physical theory is having in defining the phenomena of the realm of
the very small in real terms.
With the addition of these two smallscale regions to those described above, the speed
regions of the universe can be represented as in Diagram D.
DIAGRAM D
Spee
d

time

3d

scala
r

3d

spac
e

only

spac
e

zone

time

only

Ener
gy

The extent to which our view of the physical universe has been expanded by the
identification of the properties of scalar motion can be seen from the fact that the one
section of this diagram marked 3d (thr~edimensional) space is the only part of the
whole that has been recognized by conventional science. Of course, this is the only
region that is readily accessible to human observation, and the great majority of the
physical phenomena that come to the attention of human observers are phenomena of
this threedimensional spatial region. But the difficulties that physical science is

currently encountering are not primarily concerned with these familiar phenomena;
they arise mainly from attempts that are being made to deal with the universe as a
whole on the basis of the assumption that nothing exists outside the region of three
dimensional space.
Our results show that the principal problems now confronting physics and astronomy
stem from the fact that observation and experiment have penetrated into these regions
that are beyond the scope of the threedimensional space to which presentday
theorists are limiting their vision. The phenomena and entities of the hitherto
unrecognized regions of the physical universe interact with those of the region of
threedimensional space only at widely scattered locations. We therefore encounter
them one by one at apparently unrelated points. For a full appreciation of their
significance it needs to be realized that all of these seemingly isolated items are
constituent elements of a vast physical system that is mainly beyond the reach of our
physical facilities.
The concept of phenomena that either cannot be represented accurately, or cannot be
represented at all, within a threedimensional spatial system of reference, will no
doubt be unacceptable to many individuals who are firmly committed to the long
standing belief that the region defined by such a system is the whole of physical
existence. But this is simply another case of anthropomorphism, not essentially
different from the once general conviction that the earth is the center of the universe.
Nature is under no obligation to conform to the manner in which the human race
perceives physical events, and in order to enable continued progress toward better
understanding of natural processes it has been necessary time and time again to
transcend the limitations that men have tried to impose on physical phenomena.
Extension of physical theory into regions beyond representation in the conventional
spatial reference systems is a drastic change, to be sure, but the fact that such an
extension turns out to be required should not surprise anyone who is familiar with the
history of science.
As indicated in Diagram C, when the distance exceeds 1.00, the gravitational limit,
and gravitation is consequently eliminated, the limiting value of 2x is at the sector
boundary. Any further addition to the speed results in entry into the cosmic sector. It is
possible, however, for an object to acquire a translational speed of 3x and still
remain in the material sector until the opposing gravitational motion is reduced to the
point where the net total speed of the object reaches two units.

Thus far we have been considering the successive units of speed purely as
magnitudes. On this basis, they are all equivalent. As we saw in Diagram B, however,
the second unit in each scalar dimension is a unit of energy, rather than a unit of
speed. lt is equivalent to a unit of speed in magnitude, but in relation to zero speed it is
inverse, and opposite in direction. Motion in this speed range is in time. The effect of
the reversal at the unit level is to divide the two sectors of the universe into regions in
which the relation between the natural and arbitrary spatial reference systems changes
at each regional boundary. Since the natural system is the one to which the universe
actually conforms, any process that, in fact, continues without change across a
regional (unit) boundary reverses in the context of the arbitrary fixed spatial reference
system. Each region thus has its own special characteristics, when viewed in the
context of the spatial reference system.
The observed characteristics of motion in the intermediate region, for instance, are
quite different from those of motion in the speed range below unity. However, the
differences are introduced by the connection to the reference system; they are not
inherent in the motions. So far as the scalar motion itself is concerned, these are two
oneunit positive magnitudes of the same nature. The fact that one of these motions
takes place in space, and the other in time, is a result of their relation to unity, the
natural datum, or zero level.
A speed 1x is less than unity, and it causes a change of position in space, without
effect on position in time (relative to the natural datum). A speed of 2x, in the
intermediate range, is greater than unity, and it causes a change of position in time.
Further addition of speed, bringing the motion into the 3x range, the uJtra high speed
range, puts it over the onedimensional limit of two units, and into the spatial unit of a
second dimension. Such a motion is outward in space in the second dimension, while
it continues outward in time in e first dimension. As noted earlier, coincident motion
in both space and time is impossible. But we have seen that a motion with energy n/1
in time is equivalent to a motion with speed 1/n in space. As long as the gravitational
effect is strong enough to keep the net total speed below the sector limit of two units,
the motion as a whole continues on the spatial basis. The motion in time that takes
place in the 2x and 3x speed ranges while the net speed is below two units is
therefore a motion in equivalent space.
The upper speed ranges are duplicated on the energy side of the neutral level.
Corresponding to the intermediate speed range is an intermediate energy range, with

energy 2x, where x is the fractional energy eyuivalent of n units of speed. In this
energy range, the motion as a whole continues on the time basis as long as the net
total energy remains below the twounit level. The motion in space that takes place in
this 2x energy range is therefore a motion in equivalent time.
Similarly, a motion component in the 3x energy range, which involves motion in
time in one dimension and motion in space in a second dimension, continues as a
motion in ecluivalent time as long as the net total energy remains below the level at
which gravitation begins acting in space.
Like the phenomena of the low energy range, the region of threedimensional time, the
events taking place in the two upper energy ranges are outside our observational
limits, and we know them only by analogy with the corresponding events on the space
side of the neutral level. However, events in the upper speed ranges produce some
effects that are observable. An examination of these effects will be our next
undertaking, and will be the subject of Chapter 7.
Some general comments about the contents of this present chapter are in order. First, it
may seem that the large number and broad scope of the conclusions that have been
reached are out of proportion to the base from which it is asserted that they are
derived, inasmuch as the stated objective was to derive them from the mathematical
properties of reciprocals. It should be remembered, however, that the point brought
out in Chapter 5 was that application of these mathematical properties to any
particular set of physical circumstances would define the physical properties.
Notwithstanding the essential simplicity of scalar motion, it is subject to a wide
variety of such physical circumstances, by reason of (1) the existence of positive and
negative scalar magnitudes, (2) the limitation to discrete units, and (3) the three
dimensionality of the physical universe. The number of permutations and
combinations of these factors is enormous.
The second point that warrants some consideration is the logical status of the
conclusions that have been reached with respect to the phenomena of the regions
intermediate between the region represented in the conventional spatial reference
system and the corresponding inverse region. It has been found empirically that
certain things (using the term in a broad sense to include both entities and
phenomena) do exist in the physical universe. These, particularly the ones that have
not heretofore been recognized, constitute the basis for the development of thought in

this present volume. In the course of this development, we find that certain
things must exist as a consequence of the things that we observe do exist. For
example, we have seen that the observed existence of a fundamental force requires the
existence of a fundamental motion. Further results of the development of the
consequences of the established facts in both of these categories then reveal that
certain other things canexist. Ordinarily, this would not imply that they do exist, but
there is one intluential school of thought in science that takes the stand that in
nature anything that can exist (or happen. There is no clear distinction, from the
natural standpoint, between what exists and what happens) does exist. K. W. Ford
expresses this point of view:
One of the elementary rules of nature is that, in the absence of a law prohibiting an
event or phenomenon, it is bound to occur with some degree of probability. To put it
simply and crudely: anything that can happen does happen.73
In any event, whether we can assert that some physical objects actually do attain
speeds in the intermediate and ultra high ranges, or whether the most that we can
legitimately say is that they can attain such speeds, what we need to do in order to
bring speeds of this magnitude into the factual picture that we are developing in this
work is to identiJv physical objects whose properties coincide with the properties of
objects moving at speeds in excess of that of light. lt is evident that such objects, if
they exist, are astronomical. This introduces some difficulties into the identification
process. The amount of observational information about astronomical phenomena is,
in many cases, severely limited. What is a quasar? No one knows, 74 says Gerrit
Verschuur (1977). Why is the matter of the universe aggregated into galaxies? This is
the most glaring and basic unsolved problem in astronomy, 75according to M. J. Rees.
To make matters worse, an unknown, but probably substantial, proportion of what is
currently regarded as knowledge is actually misinformation. Much of what is known
today must be regarded as tentative and all parts of the field have to be viewed with
healthy skepticism.76( Martin Harwit)
In order to compensate for the scarcity of reliable information about the nature and
properties of the individual astronomical entities, the identifications based on
comparison with this information will be supplemented by identification of
entire classes of objects or phenomena. For example, a whole class of compact
astronomical objects will be identified as material aggregates whose high density is
due to the same cause: component speeds in the intermediate (2x) range. Similarly, a

process of aggregation, observed only at isolated points, will be identified in its

entirety. It could be said that the next chapter, in which most of these identifications
will be made, is, in total, a comparison of the properties of the intermediate region, as
derived by deduction from factual premises, with the corresponding region of the
astronomical universe. In other words, it is an identification of the intermediate region
as a whole. Chapters 5 and 6 were devoted entirely to the development of the relevant
facts. Now Chapter 7 will be devoted entirely to the process of identification.
In the course of this identification process, however, we will advance our
understanding of the intermediate speed region a step farther than was possible in the
preceding discussion. The physical entities that we will identify as moving at speeds
greater than unity are active participants in largescale physical activity. Thus, in
examining and identifying these entities we will also be deriving a general picture of
the largescale action of the universe.
CHAPTER 7
Astronomical Identifications

As explained in the preceding chapter, in order to bring out the full significance of the
hitherto unrecognized physical facts that were discovered in the course of the
systematic investigation of the nature and properties of scalar motion, it is necessary
to identify the phenomena to which these facts are relevant, and to interpret them in
the light of the new information. The areas of physical science outside the region
represented in the conventional threedimensional spatial system of reference are
mainly in the realm of astronomy, and the new information now available therefore
requires some changes in the views that now prevail in the astronomical field.
Inasmuch as many heretofore unrecognized facts of a significant nature, and important
consequences thereof, were derived from factual premises in Chapters 5 and , and
are now to be related with astronomical knowledge, it follows that
some major changes in astronomical thought will be required.
Since they are necessary consequences of the newly established facts, these revisions
of existing ideas will have to be made regardless of the attitude of the astronomical
community, but it is interesting to note that the astronomers have already recognized
the implications of the existing problems, and have, to a considerable extent,
reconciled themselves to the inevitability of major changes. Harwit summarizes the
existing situation in this manner:

The fundamental nature of astrophysical discoveries being made or remaining to be

made leaves little room for doubt but that a large part of current theory will have to
be drastically revised over the next decades. 76
The general tendency in astronomical circles is to lay the blame on the physicists, and
to join with Hoyle in calling for a radical revision of the laws of physics. 77 Here are
some of the statements that echo this theme:
In some places, too, the extraordinary thought begins to emerge that the concepts of
physical science as we appreciate them today in all their complexity may be quite
inadequate to provide a scientific description of the ultimate fate of the universe?
78
(Bernard Lovell)
Is it possible that the solution to the quasar mystery will involve a fundamental
rethinking of the basic physics to which we have been growing accustomed since
Albert Einsteins time?74 (Gerrit Verschuur)
At the present time, the socalled energy problem (accounting for the energy of the
quasars) is widely considered to be the most important unsolved problem in
theoretical astrophysics, and it is believed by some that the final solution will only
come after astronomers have rewritten some of the laws of fundamental
physics.79 (Simon Mitton)
Whether or not the new facts reported in this work, and their consequences, constitute
a radical revision of the laws of physics is a matter of opinion, but it is true that they
require a radical revision of current ideas in certain areas of astronomy. This may not
bejust what the astronomers have been asking for, but it cannot be expected that a
major change in fundamentals can be accomplished without some significant effect on
the superstructure that has been erected on those foundations. It should be no surprise,
therefore, when application of the information developed in the preceding chapters
leads to some substantial modification of the prevailing views in astronomy as well as
in physics.
Most astronomical phenomena are located entirely within the region of three
dimensional space, and are therefore capable of representation in the conventional
reference system. It is generally recognized that gravitation is the controlling factor in
this region. As we have seen, gravitation is a rotational phenomenon, a rotationally

distributed scalar motion. Since it is directed inward, it causes an increasing

concentration of this type of motion; that is, the aggregates of matter in the region of
threedimensional space continually increase in size. The astronomers have been slow
to realize that this is an inexorable process, dominating the physical situation all the
way from subatomic particle to giant galaxy, but the following statement by Martin
Ryle is an indication that a general understanding is emerging:
What we now need is an understanding of the physical mechanisms involved in the
formation of a galaxy from the primeval gas, and its subsequent evolution from this
earliest stage to that involving the sudden enormous energy production apparent in
radio galaxies and quasars.80
It is evident from observation that, unless the universe is in a relatively early stage of
development, there must be some kind of a limitation on the process of aggregation
under the influence of gravitation. Otherwise, as Einstein noted, The stellar universe
ought to be a finite island in the infinite ocean of space. 81 Lovell elaborates the same
thought in these words:
The application of Newtons theory of gravitation, in which the attraction between
bodies varies inversely as the square of their distance apart, to the largescale
structure of the universe would require that the universe had a centre in which the
spatial density of stars and galaxies was a maximum. As we proceed outwards from
this centre the spatial density should diminish, until finally at great distances it should
be succeeded by an infinite region of emptiness. 82
Einsteins answer to this problem, as in his treatment of the problem resulting from
the discovery of the constant speed of light, was to devise
a marhematical reconciliation of the conflict by means of an ad hoc modification of
the geometry of space. The need for any such dubious expedient in the situation we
are now considering is eliminatcd when it is recognized, as in the quotation from
Ryle, that the evolutionary course in the realm of astronomy reaches its climax in
events that involve extremely energetic processes, and that there are quite definite
limits on the sizes of the aggregates. The individual objects, the largest of which are
stars (or stellar systems), reach an upper limit somewhere in the neighborhood of 100
solar masses. Superstars with much larger masses appear in many theoretical
speculations, but get no support from observation. The aggregates of stars, the largest
of which are galaxies, are similarly restricted to the range below about 10 12 or 1013solar

masses. As expressed by Hoyle, Galaxies apparently exist up to a certain limit and

not beyond that.83
The correlation of the energetic events with maximum size is clear. One class of the
violent stellar explosions known as supernovae has been identified with the hot
massive stars at the upper end of the main sequence. There is also evidence of violent
activity in the largest class of galaxies strong radiation extending over a wide range
of frequencies, ejection of matter in clouds and jets, and in some cases definite
indications of catastrophic explosions.
As matters now stand, we cannot determine from observation whether space is
Euclidean or nonEuclidean, but the need for a departure from Euclidean geometry to
resolve the problem cited by Einstein and Lovell in the quotations above is eliminated
when the existence of limits on size is recognized. The galaxies are finite islands in
the ocean of space, but only up to the limiting magnitude. The existence of this limit
shows that the loss of mass in the explosive events that characterize the giant galaxies
prevents building up any larger aggregates.
The exact nature of the ejecta from these explosions, and from the supernovae, has not
yet been definitely established from observation, but obviously some of the matter
thrown off in these violent events leaves at very high speeds. The true magnitude of
these speeds is not currently known. It is assumed in presentday thinking that they
cannot exceed the speed of light. However, as we have seen in the preceding pages,
the possible speeds extend into a much higher range. lt will be appropriate, therefore,
to examine the effects of speeds in the ranges above unity (the speed of light), as they
appear on application of the principles established in the earlier chapters, and to
compare these effects with the results of observation of the explosion products.
All explosive events generate some low speed (less than unit speed) products. If the
explosive forces are isotropic, these products are ejected in all directions as an
expanding cloud of matter. If those forces are anisotropic, some, or all, of the products
take the form of an identifiable aggregate moving outward from the scene of the
explosion. In either case, these are purely phenomena of the threedimensional region,
and they have no bearing on the activity in the upper speed ranges that we are now
examining. The explosion products with which we are now concerned are the fast
moving products of explosions that are powerful enough to give some of the ejected
fragments speeds greater than that of light.

As brought out in Chapter 6, motion in the intermediate speed range takes place in
time (equivalent space) rather than in space, but is otherwise similar. Matter ejected at
speeds in excess of unity by an explosion therefore takes the form of a cloud of
particles similar to the cloud of particles that is expanding into space at the lower
speeds. Here we need to keep in mind that the various scalar motions of an object are
independent. It therefore does not necessarily follow that because one of them takes
the inverse form motion in time rather than motion in space that all of them
assume the inverse status. Thus there exist not only the phenomena of spatial motion,
and the inverse thereof, but also phenomena of an intermediate character, in which
one or more motions of an object attain speeds that put them into the ranges that
constitute motion in time, while others remain on the spatial basis. For instance, the
motions of the components of the object may be in the intermediate range, while the
object itself moves at low speed.
The fastest product of one of the two types of supernova explosion is in this
intermediate category. It is an expanding cloud of particles centered on the explosion
site (if the explosive forces are isotropic, as observation indicates that they usually
are), and identical with the expanding cloud of low speed particles, except that, since
the particles are moving with intermediate speeds, they are expanding into time rather
than into space.
Because of the directional inversion at the unit level, this expansion reduces the
equivalent space, the size of the cloud as seen in the spatial reference system. Thus, if
a portion of the explosion products of a supernova attain intermediate speeds, as we
may expect in view of the violence of the explosion, the second product is a relatively
small aggregate, a small star, of extremely high density, and relatively high surface
temperature. The spatial speed imparted to this explosion product as a whole is zero,
and the position in space is not altered. The effects of the intermediate explosion
speed are internal. Externally, the behavior of the product star is the same as that of a
normal star. These characteristics of the intermediate speed product are identical with
those of the observed white dwarf star.
The idea of a decrease in the observed size of a physical object by reason of expansion
of its constituents into threedimensional time will no doubt occasion some
conceptual difficulty for many readers, not because there is anything illogical or
irrational about the idea, but simply because it conflicts with longstanding beliefs
about the nature of physical realities. This is the same kind of a situation that science

has encountered over and over again since its beginnings some thousands of years
ago. Such ideas as a flat earth, a perfect unchanging realm in the skies, a geocentric
universe, heat as a substance, natures abhorrence of a vacuum, spontaneous
generation of life, and so on, were just as firmly implanted in the minds of our
ancestors as the prevailing concept of the nature of time is in the human minds of
today. Andjust as those cherished, and strongly defended, ideas had to be discarded, or
appropriately modified, when definite evidence to the contrary was forthcoming, so
the currently prevailing assumptions about time will have to be altered to the extent
required by the facts uncovered in the scalar motion investigation. The newly
discovered basic facts are clear and undeniable once they are brought to light, and
science has no option but to accommodate itself to them.
As will be demonstrated in the pages that follow, the scalar motion findings that
provide this new explanation of the properties of the white dwarf stars also explain a
wide variety of other recently discovered astronomical phenomena, including some
that have no explanation at all in terms of current astrophysical theory. Before
undertaking an examination of these other phenomena, however, it may be helpful to
those who are still troubled about the idea of an upsidedown density relationship if
we take a look at a situation in which the inverse density gradient is clearly
demonstrated.
In our ordinary experience, the components of a heterogeneous fluid separate
according to density, if not continually stirred. The heavier molecules migrate to the
bottom of the container, and the lighter ones accumulate at the top. The same kind of a
separation also takes place in ordinary stars. Some mixing may occur by reason of
rotation of the star, but the amount of rotation is not usually sufficient to eliminate the
separation; it merely reduces the extent to which the separation is carried. The center
of the star is the bottom from a gravitational standpoint, and in an ordinary star the
heaviest elements accumulate preferentially in the central regions, while the outer
layers are enriched in hydrogen, the lightest element. Since hydrogen is the
predominant constituent of the star, it is difficult to confirm the expected small
amount of enrichment, but nothing that is now known is inconsistent with the
conclusion that the normal kind of separation by density occurs.
On the basis of the explanation of the structure of the white dwarf stars that has just
been given, the density gradient in these stars should be inverse. The region in the
center of the star is the region of greatest compression in time, which is ecluivalent to

expansion in space. The center of the star is thus the region of least density, while the
surface layers have the highest density. The surface layers of the white dwarf should
therefore be preferentially enriched in helium, the heavier of the two principal
constituents of the star, and the center of the star should be almost entirely hydrogen.
A review article by James Liebert in the 1980 Annual Review of Astronomy and
Astrophysics supplies the information needed in order to compare these conclusions
with the results of observation. This comparison is unequivocally in favor of the
existence of the inverse density gradient. Liebert reports that the cooler heliumrich
starsare the most numerous kind of white dwarf, and that some have almost pure
helium atmospheres. The existence of nearly pure helium atmosphere degenerates
over a wide range of temperatures has long been a puzzle, he says. The existence of
an inverse density gradient in the white dwarfs solves the puzzle. The helium
accumulates in the outer layers because these are the regions of greatest density in the
white dwarfs.
These findings with respect to the helium concentration are further confirmed by
Lieberts report on the behavior of elements heavier than helium, commonly lumped
together as metals in discussions of stellar composition. There is some inflow of
matter into these stars from the environment, the metal content of which is known.
Like the helium, these incoming metals should preferentially accumulate in the
regions of greatest density, the outer layers of the white dwarfs. Liebert describes the
observed situation in this manner:
The metals in the acereted material should diffuse downward, while hydrogen should
remain in the convective layer. Thus the predicted metalstohydrogen ratio should
be at or below solar (interstellar) values, yet real DFDGDK stars have calcium
tohydrogen abundance ratios ranging from about solar to well above solar.
Here, again, as in the helium distribution, the verdict is unequivocal. The larger
concentration of the heavier elements in the outer regions definitely identifies these as
the regions of greatest density, a result that is inexplicable on the basis of conventional
physical theory. Liebert admits that no plausible explanation on the basis of current
astronomical thought is known. The only suggestion that he mentions is that the
accretion of hydrogen might be blocked by some kind of a mechanism, a farfetched
idea without the least support from observation. Here, then, is a positive
demonstration of the inverse density gradient that is required when the white dwarf

stars are identified as objects whose components are moving with speeds in the
intermediate range. The light molecules sink to the bottom (the center of the star)
while the heavy molecules remain on top, just as they must if the constituents of the
star are expanding into time.
The white dwarfs were the first of a class of compac astronomical objects to be
discovered. Almost fifty years elapsed before the next discovery. In the meantime a
theory, based on a set of ad hoc assumptions, was formulated to explain the unusual
features of the white dwarfs, and by the time the next objects of this class appeared on
the scene the increased acceptance that comes with familiarity had given the white
dwarf theory a safe place in astronomical thought. Since this theory was specifically
tailored to the white dwarfs, it was not applicable to the new compact objects, the
quasars, and efforts (so far not very successful) had to be made to develop a new
theory for the quasars. A few years later the pulsars joined the group, and again a new
theory was required. Fortunately for the theorists, relatively little is known about the
basic features of the pulsars, and a theory based on the assumed existence of a
hypothetical class of objects called neutron stars was found to be capable of being
stretched far enough to cover most of the available items of knowledge. It could also
be adapted to most members of a class of compact xray emitters subsequently
located, but other members of this class were too large to fit within the limits
calculated for the white dwarfs and neutron stars. The black hole hypothesis was
invoked to meet this situation.
So in order to explain the different astronomical manifestations of one physical
phenomenon extremely high density we have an evergrowing multitude of
separate theories, one for the white dwarfs, one for the pulsars, at least two for the xray emitters, several for the dense cores of certain types of galaxies, and no one knows
how many for the quasars. By this time it should be evident, even without the new
information derived from the investigation reported in this present work, that a
complete overhaul of the theory of the compact objects is essential in order to
eliminate the extraordinary diversity of ideas applied to this one phenomenon. Their
comrnon feature is the extremely high density, and the contribution of this volume is
to identify the cause of that density as speeds in the intermediate range, between one
and two times the speed of light. This explanation is applicable to all of the observed
types of compact object, regardless of size, and regardless of whether the components
of the object are particles or stars.

On the basis of this explanation, all of the compact objects are explosion products.
This is currently conceded in astronomical thought, except in the case of the dense
galactic cores, which are still in the mystery category. This limitation implies that
the cause of the high density is some aspect of the explosion process. It is conceivable
that a violent explosion might actually be a combination explosion and implosion that
would leave a compact remnant at the explosion site, as currently believed, but the
details of this hypothetical process are vague. Furthermore, no one has bothered to
explain how an implosion can produce the kind of high translational speeds that are
observed features of all quasars, most pulsars, and many x-ray emitters. The known
feature of violent explosions that can explain the behavior of all of these compact
objects is an ejection speed in the ranges above untiy; that is, the explanation is
forthcoming if the properties of scalar motion, as described in the preceding pages, are
taken into consideration.
We have been able to identify the explosion that produces a white dwarf as a
supernova, because it must be a single star in order to have a product that is single and
of stellar size. There is observational evidence indicating that explosions involving
galaxies, or large segments thereof, also occur. The exact nature of the galactic
explosions and their products is still open to many questions, as the data from
observaticn are incomplete and difficult to interpret, but we can deduce that the
intensity of such an explosion is substantially greater than that of a supernova, a very
much smaller aggregate of matter. It can therefore be concluded that the maximum
speeds of the galactic ejecta are substantially higher than those of the supernova
products that constitute the white dwarfs, and are probably in the ultra high range. We
can also deduce that since the galaxies are aggregates of stars rather than aggregates
of particles, the ejected matter will consist, in part, of stars. Thus, just as the
intermediate speed product of the explosion of a star is a smaller star, the ultra high
speed product of the explosion of a galaxy should be a smaller galaxy, a galactic
fragment.
Furthermore, as we found in Chapter 6, the ultra high speed has a spatial component.
Instead of remaining at the explosion site in the manner of the white dwarf, the
product of the galactic explosion, the galactic fragment, moves outward from the
scene of the explosion at a high rate of speed. Although the explosion speed itself is in
the ultra high range from the start, the net speed of the ejected fragment remains at a
lower level for a considerable period of time because the inward gravitational motion

in the explosion dimensions has to be overcome before the explosion speed can be
fully effective. In the interim the fastmoving galactic fragment is observable.
Let us see then just how this fragment should appear to observation. First, we can
deduce that the explosion that imparted ultra high speed to the fragment as a whole
applied some of its energy to accelerating the constituent stars. The stellar speeds will
no doubt be less than that of the aggregate, but we can conclude that at least a large
proportion of them will be in the next lower speed range, intermediate speed. On this
basis, the stars of the ultra high speed fragment, like the particles of which the white
dwarf star is composed, are expanding into time. This explosion product is thus a
white dwarf galaxy; not a galaxy of white dwarf stars, but a galaxy that, aside from its
high outward speed, has the characteristic white dwarf properties, a high energy
density and an abnormally small size.
These white dwarf characteristics result from the intermediate speeds of the
stars in the ejected fragment. Some further distinctive properties are contributed by
the ultra high speed of the fragment as a whole. As explained in Chapter 6, ultra high
speed involves motion in time (equivalent space) in one dimension and motion in
space in another. One of these scalar dimensions is coincident with the dimension of
the conventional spatial reference system, and the redshift of the galactic fragment
reflects the total speed in this dimension. Since this includes half of the explosion
speed, as well as the normal recession speed due to the outward motion of the natural
reference system, the redshift of the galactic fragment is much greater than that of an
ordinary galaxy at the same spatial distance.
These are the properties of galactic fragments ejected at ultra high speeds by violent
explosions, as defined by the factual information developed in the preceding pages.
What we now want to know is whether there are any observed objects that have these
same properties, and can therefore be identified as the fastmoving explosion
products. The answer is clear. The objects known as quasars answer the description;
they are apparently small galaxies or galactic fragments; they are abnormally small for
objects of this class; their energy output is abnormally high relative to their sizes; and
their redshifts are far above those of any other known objects.
The origin of the quasar redshifts is one of the most controversial subjects in present
day astronomy. The great majority of the astronomers accept the cosmological
explanation, which ascribes the entire redshift to the normal galactic recession, and

thus places the quasars at extreme distances. A relatively small, but persistent, group
of dissenters challenges this conclusion, and contends that these objects are actually
much closer, a hypothesis that requires some of the redshift to be produced by
something other than the normal recession. The debate has continued ever since the
very large redshifts were discovered, but the question is no closer to resolution. The
problem is that there is a headon collision between redshift theory and energy
generation theory. If the redshifts are cosmological, then the indicated energy
emission is so enormous that no known process can come anywhere near accounting
for it. On the other hand, if the quasars are closer, so that the energy emission can be
explained, then a new explanation has to be found for the excess redshift. Obviously
something has to give. One or the other of the two limiting assumptions has to be
abandoned.
For some reason, the logic of which is difficult to understand, the majority of
astronomers seem to believe that the redshift alternative is the only one that requires a
revision or extension of existing physical theory. The argument most frequently
advanced against the contentions of those who favor a noncosmological explanation
of the redshifts is that a hypothesis that requires a change in physical theory should be
accepted only as a last resort. Dennis Sciama puts the case in this manner:
My own view is that in discussing these localised phenomena, one should work
extremely hard to fit them into the accepted laws of physics. Only after persistent
failure should one introduce new laws.84
What Sciama and his colleagues are overlooking is that in this case the last resort is
the only thing left. If modification or extension of existing theory to explain the
redshifts is ruled out, then existing theory must be modified or extended to explain the
energy generation. Furthermore, the energy alternative is much more drastic, as it not
only requires the existence of some totally new process, but also involves an
enormous increase in the scale of the energy generation, a rate far beyond anything
heretofore known. All that is required in the redshift situation, on the other hand, is a
heretofore unrecognized process. This process is not called upon to explain anything
more than is currently regarded as within the capability of the recession process; it
merely has to account for the production of the observed redshifts at less distant
spatial locations. Even without the new information derived from the scalar motion
investigation, it should be evident that the redshift alternative is by far the better
prospect for solving the impasse between the redshift and energy generation theories.

It is therefore significant that this is the explanation that emerges from the scalar
motion study.
Of course, we have to accept the world as we find it, but it is worth noting that here,
as in many instances in the preceding pages, the answer that emerges from a
development of the consequences of the newly established physical facts takes the
simplest and most logical path. Indeed, this answer to the redshift problem does not
even involve breaking as much new ground as has been expected by those
astronomers who currently favor a noncosmological explanation. As they see the
situation, some new physical process or principle must be invoked in order to add a
nonvelocity component to the recession redshift of the quasars. But we find that no
such new process or principle is required. The additional redshift is simply the result
of an added speed one that has hitherto escaped recognition because it is not capable
of representation in the conventional spatial reference system.
The reduction in the quasar distances that results when the explosion component of
the redshift is taken into consideration also provides the answer to the problem raised
when it was discovered that there are individual parts of certain quasars that are
moving apart with speeds which, on the basis of the cosmological distance theory, are
many times the speed of light. As reported by Verschuur, This discovery caused quite
a furor.85 Some tentative explanations have been advanced, but none of these
answers is fully satisfactory.86
Inasmuch as one of these tentative answers was that the distances to quasars might be
incorrectly indicated by their redshifts, the answer that we now find is the correct
one, it is interesting to note the reason that Verschuur advances for rejecting it. If we
accept this explanation, he tells us, we would have to question all redshift
measurements and hence the expanding universe model. 86 This is typical of much of
the reaction to proposals for modification of existing theories. All too often such
proposals are summarily rejected, as in this case, on the strength of arguments based
on the general situtation defined by existing theory, without any consideration of the
possibility that this situation, within which the modification would take place, is itself
changed by the new proposal. In the present instance, it is simply assumed that
whatever new factors enter into the determination of the redshifts of the quasars, in
the context of the new proposal, are applicable to all other redshifts. There is no
reason why this should necessarily be true. Indeed, the development in this work
shows that it is not true. The explanation that we have derived from factual premises

does not affect any redshifts other than those of objects moving with ultra high speeds.
The only such redshifts that have been measured are those of the quasars.
When the redshift situation is straightened out, as indicated above, there is full
agreement between the conclusions derived from the scalar motion investigation and
the principal observed quasar properties. A substantial amount of empirical
information about various details of the structure and behavior of these objects has
also been accumulated, but a theoretical analysis is required in order to account for
these details. The initial results of such an analysis were reported in the authors 1971
publication Quasars and Pulsars. They will be extended and updated in the
astronomical volume of the series, begun with Nothing But Motion, that will present a
full description of the theory of a universe of motion.
The objects known as pulsars (with a few possible exceptions) have the outward
spatial motions that are characteristic of the duasars, but sizes comparable to those of
the white dwarfs. In the light of what has been said in the preceding paragraphs, it is
evident that this combination of stellar size and outward motion could be produced by
a stellar explosion violent enough to impart ultra high speed to some of the products.
The probability that this is the correct explanation of the pulsar origin is indicated by
the existence of two distinct kinds of supernovae, Type I and Type II, one of which is
considerably more powerful than the other.
The results of the investigation reported in this volume do not identify the cause of the
supernova explosion, other than indicating that it takes place at some limiting stage of
the evolution of the star; that is, at an age or size limit. The correlation of the
explosive activity of the galaxies with a maximum size indicates that the galaxies are
also subject to some kind of an evolutionary limit, but there is evidence to suggest that
the primary events in the galactic case are stellar explosions rather than actual galactic
processes. One such indication comes from the previously mentioned evidence of the
existence of dense cores in certain galaxies. On the basis of the information developed
in the preceding pages, the abnormal density of these cores is due to the same cause as
the extremely high density of the white dwarfs, the quasars, and other compact
astronomical objects; that is, speeds in the intermediate range, between one and two
times the speed of light. Our galaxy has a relatively small core of this nature. M 87,
the closest giant, has a much larger and much denser core. Radiation at radio
frequencies, which is apparently related to the activity in the core, shows a similar
correlation with the size of the galaxy.

This pattern suggests that the accumulation of matter with speeds in the higher ranges
begins in the early spiral stage, and continues at an accelerating rate, reaching a
climax in the giant galaxies when the confined material blows out a section of the
overlying structure of the galaxy in the manner of a boiler explosion. On this basis, it
might be expected that there would be some instances in which the fastmoving
material in the core accumulates faster than normal, or the galaxy grows more slowly
than usual, so that the breakthrough comes at an earlier stage, with less violent
results. Such behavior is observed in a class of spiral galaxies, named after their
discoverer as Seyferts, which are emitting energy at a rate as much as 100 times the
total emission of energy from an ordinary galaxy like ours, 87mainly from a small
central nucleus. It also appears that there are periodic explosions in the Seyfert
nucleus that blast debris into the surrounding regions. 88
All of these observations are in accord with the tentative identification of the nature of
the explosive process in the galaxies suggested by the presence of dense cores in the
older galaxies. In the context of presentday astronomical theory, however, this
explanation is ruled out by the absence of any known means of confining the
fastmoving matter in the core of the galaxy. The answer to this problem was deduced
from established facts in Chapter 6.
At the point where we have identified the quasars as the ultra high speed products of
the galactic explosions that occur when the galaxies reach their evolutionary limit, and
have confirmed the identification by a omparison of properties, we have arrived at
the observational limit. Our findings as to what happens to these objects beyond this
stage cannot be verified by comparison with data from observation. But the fact that
the results of successive additions of increments of speed, as deduced in the manner
described in Chapter 6, are in full agreement with the observations as far as
observation can penetrate is a strong indication that they are correct beyond this point
as well.
On this basis, the net speed of the quasar continues to increase as the effect of
gravitation is gradually eliminated, and ultimately it reaches the twounit level. As
noted in Chapter 6, this is the effective secter boundary. In the boundary zone the
moving object is subject to influences of both the material and cosmic sectors. lt is
still concentrated in space, and is therefore subject to spatial contacts and processes,
but the gravitational effects are in time. The subsequent course of this object depends

on the relative magnitudes of the opposing effects. Ordinarily gravitation prevails, and
the quasar enters the cosmic sector, becoming unobservable.
The result of this exit of the quasars from the observational zone at a limiting net
speed is to impose a rather sharp cutoff point on the quasar life span and redshift.
The existence of this cutoff is recognized by the astronomers, but because they have
not yet discovered the explosion speeds and their results, they attribute the cutoff to a
different cause.
As explained by Martin Ryle:
As we proceed outward we find a great excess of fainter ones (radio sources)
But at still smaller intensities we find a sudden reversal of this trend a dramatic
reduction in the number of the faintest sources. This convergence is so abrupt that we
must suppose that before a certain epoch in the past, there were no radio sources. 89
This is another example of the no alternative fallacy that we have had occasion to
criticize at several points in the preceding discussion. It is simply not true that we
must suppose that there were no radio sources before a certain time. Like Einsteins
assertion that there is no other way, and other similar contentions that abound in
presentday science, what such an assertion actually means is that there is no
alternative providing that all of the elements that define the situation to which the
assertion applies are corremly apprehended. But the theorist does not ordinarily resort
to the no alternative argument unless his case is weak, and it usually turns out, in
these instanees, that the general situation was not correctly interpreted. In the case
now under consideration, analysis of observational data has indicated that all, or
nearly all, of the most distant radio sources are quasars. 90 Our deductions from factual
premises show (1) that these distant quasars are distributed twodimensionally rather
than threedimensionally (corroborated by the studies just mentioned), and (2) that
beyond the distance corresponding to the twounit speed limit the quasars become
unobservable.
Phenomena in the range between unit speed and unit energy, the intermediate regions,
are unstable, in that they tend to advance, or revert back, to the lower energy, or speed,
levels of the threedimensional regions. As noted earlier, the spatial forces sometimes
gain the upper hand in the boundary zone, and cause a decrease in the speed, bringing
the quasar or pulsar back into the material environment. Other explosion products,
such as the white dwarfs, attain their maximum speeds in the intermediate range. The

average speed of objects on the space side of the neutral axis, the material sector, is
relatively low. Any object that leaves the boundary zone on the space side, or does not
advance far enough to reach that zone, is subject to the environmental influences of
the material sector, and it loses speed for this reason, gradually dropping back to a
level below unit speed, in the region of threedimensional space. Such objects return
to the low speed range in essentially the same condition in which they left it. They
have never ceased to be materialaggregates.
Quasars or pulsars that attain speeds above two net units follow a totally different
course. The significant change at the sector boundary is that gravitation, which is no
longer effective in space because of the distance, becomes effective in time. This
spacetime reversal alters the factors that determine the stability of the aggregate.
When gravitation begins operating in time, the individual atoms or stars that constitute
the aggregate begin moving outward from each other in space by reason of the
progression of the natural reference system, now no longer offset by inward
gravitational motion. Coincidentally, the process of aggregation in time begins.
Eventually the aggregate in space ceases to exist, and an aggregate in time takes its
place.
We can deduce that the average energy in the sector of motion in time, the cosmic
sector, is similar to the average speed in the sector of motion in space, in that it is
relatively low, well below the unit level. The newly arrived atoms that were
explosively ejected into this sector therefore lose energy in interactions with the
environment. Eventually they drop below the unit energy level and into the region of
threedimensional time.
As brought out in Chapter 5, the atoms of material aggregates, which are contiguous
in space, are widely dispersed in time. Thus the continuous ejection of matter from the
material sector by explosive processes causes a continuous inflow of dispersed matter
into the cosmic sector. Under the influence of gravitation in time, this dispersed matter
is gradually aggregated into cosmic stars, objects whose atoms are contiguous in time,
but widely dispersed in space. The stars form clusters and galaxies in time,just as their
counterparts do in space. Ultimately these aggregates reach the evolutionary limits at
which they explode. Some of the explosions are violent enough to eject their products
at energies that carry them across the boundary into the material sector. Here the
process of aggregation of this matter, now widely dispersed in space, begins anew,
initiating another cycle.

CHAPTER 8
Cosmological Conclusions

Any consideration of the largescale structure and action of the universe such as that
in Chapters 6 and 7 inevitably leads to questions as to how the universe originated,
what its eventual fate will be, and how the physical processes that take place are
related to the initial and final states. These are the primary concerns of the branch of
knowledge known as cosmology. The study of the origin is separately classified
as cosmology, but where so little information is available the separate classification is
a nonessential refinement, and the present tendency is to apply the term cosmology to
the whole field. In earlier times the only information bearing on cosmological issues
was that claimed to have been derived by religious revelation, and therefore not open
to scientific investigation. More recently some astronomical knowledge has been
recognized as relevant, and at present scientific cosmology is regarded as a branch of
astronomy.
Two general theories have emerged from the work of the astronomers. Both theories
accept what is known as the Cosmological Principle, which asserts that the large
scale aspects of the universe appear the same from all locations in space. The Steady
State theory extends this to what the originators call the Perfect Cosmological
Principle. This extension asserts that the largescale aspects also appear the same
from all locations in time. The Big Bangtheory rejects this broader principle, and
postulates an evolutionary development from an earlier to a later state. I n the simple
theory these are initial and final conditions. A variation of the theory postulates a
reversal at each end of this evolutionary path, leading to a neverending oscillation
between the two extremes.
Neither theory has more than a very few aspects that can be checked against
observation, and both are therefore highly speculative. Their relative degree of
acceptance has fluctuated as the small amount of relevant observational data has
increased. At present the Steady State theory is at a low ebb, because its supporters
have not yet been able to find acceptable explanations, within the theory, for some of
the more recent observations. The results of this work indicate that such explanations
exist, and if it were not for the fact that those results rule out the Steady State theory
for other reasons, it could be put back on its feet again.

The crucial observation that any proposal must be prepared to explain (or explain
away) is the recession of the distant galaxies. An explanation of the observed high
degree of uniformity in space is also required, whether or not the Cosmological
Principle is accepted. These items clearly have a direct relation to the pattern of
evolution, whatever it may be. The status of the other items currently being offered as
evidence is less critical. Much stress is being laid on the bIack body background
radiation recently discovered, but it is difficu It to see why the ability of a theory to
explain the existence of this radiation has any more significance than ability to explain
any other currently obscure feature of the universe, the similar xray background
radiation, for instance, or the cosmic rays, or the origin of galaxies, or any one of
dozens of other items.
The ability of a theory to explain any one of these observed phenomena is a point in
its favor, to be sure, but when there are so many other equally significant items that
it cannotexplain, it is clearly a gross exaggeration to brand this particular item as
crucial. What has happened is that because neither theory can explain hardly anything,
the significance of this one item that the
Big Bang theory has some kind of an explanation for has been blown up all out of
proportion to its real importance. The sad fact is that while almost everything that
happens in the universe is relevant to this issue in one way or another, none of the
theories heretofore advanced has a broad enough base to enable it to deal with more
than an insignificant number of these items.
The Big Bang theory assumes ad hoc that at some time in the past the entire contents
of the universe were gathered together in a limited amount of space, and that a
gigantic explosion occurred for some unspecified reason, ejecting all, or most, of
these contents into space at the speeds that are now observed. It offers no explanation
of the situation existing prior to the hypothetical explosion, or of the explosion
process itself. It accepts the Cosmological Principle, but has no explanation of the
uniformity that the principle requires. As noted earlier, the existence of the recently
discovered background radiation, an explanation of which is provided by the theory, is
not of major importance from the standpoint of verifying the validity of the theory, but
it does give the Big Bang an edge over its current rival. The significance of this
advantage is greatly exaggerated in current astronomical thought. The following
comment from a 1980 publication is typical of the general attitude:

Why are we here taking for granted that there was a Big Bang origin of the Universe?
The reason is that the existence of the 3K radiation field is incompatible with the
steadystate theory.91
This socalled reason is totally illogical. The validity of a theory has to be
established affirmatively; it cannot be proved by eliminating the known competitors,
because no one can say how many unknown competitors may exist. Indeed, a number
of alternative ideas, or variations of the two principal theories, have already been
advanced. None of these has thus far received much support, but their existence is
sufficient in itself to demonstrate the wide open nature of this issue.
Many efforts have been made to obtain affirmative support for an evolutionary type of
theory, such as the Big Bang, by finding a difference in the density of some class of
astronomical objects between those nearby and those at great distances. The radiation
now reaching us from the most distant objects within observational range was emitted
in an earlier era when the density, according to this type of theory, was greater than it
is now. Some success in this endeavor is claimed on the basis of counts of radio
sources. These appear to show that faint sources are more numerous than would be
expected from a uniform distribution, tending to support the assertion that the sources
have moved apart in the intervening time. However, the significance of the
observations has been questioned because most, if not all, of the distant sources are
quasars, and the astronomers current understanding of these objects is too limited to
give them much confidence in arguments based on assumptions about their properties.
The information developed in the preceding chapter shows that this skepticism is
wellfounded, as it indicates that the assumption of a threedimensional distribution,
on which the density calculations are based, is not valid for the distant quasars.
The case in favor of the Big Bang theory (as distinguished from the case against its
rival, the Steady State theory, which we will examine shortly) can be summarized as
follows:
1. It is an explanation (a secondclass explanation, we might say, as it is purely ad
hoc) of the recession of the distant galaxies.
2. It is consistent with the observed largescale uniformity of the umverse.
3. It produces an explanation for the blackbody background radiation.

A similar summary of the case in favor of the Steady State theory consists of these
items:
1. It is an explanation (likewise a secondclass explanation, because it is lacking in
detail) of the recession of the galaxies.
2. It is consistent with the largescale uniformity of the universe.
3. It incorporates the spacetime symmetry of the Perfect Cosmological Principle.
The most striking feature of both of these lists is how little they explain in covering
such an immense subject area. As Verschuur sees the situation, It is undoubtedly true
that we know very little about the cosmological questions that have been posed so
far.92 As a resu It , the case in favor of either theory is argued mainly on the basis of
whatever points can be scored against its opponent. The lists of negative evidence are
formidable. First, the Big Bang:
l. The fundamental premise of the theory is entirely ad hoc.
2. The theory offers no explanation of its basic elements. Neither the antecedents of
the postulated explosion, the special conditions assumed to exist at the time of the
event, nor the mechanism by means of which this event was initiated, is in any way
accounted for.
3. The scale of the magnitudes involved is far out of line with experience, or even a
reasonable extrapolation of experience.
4. No explanation is provided for the degree of isotropy now observed in the universe.
5. The theory provides no explanation for a large number of physical phenomena that
are directly connected with the evolution of the hypothetical explosion products (aside
from the background radiation).
6. Because of this lack of detail, it is untestable.
The case against the Steady State theory rests on these points:

1. The theory violates the conservation laws by requiring continuous creation of

matter.
2. It provides no mechanism whereby the newly created matter can exert the force that
is assumed to cause the outward motion of the previously existing matter.
3. It provides no mechanism for removing old matter from the system to keep the age
distribution at the postulated constant level. (The oldest galaxies are presumed to
disappear over the time horizon, but even if this is considered to remove them from
the universe an assumption that rests on rather shaky ground it serves the purpose
only until the galaxy from which the time horizon is observed becomes the oldest.
Thereafter, the age of the oldest galaxy in the observable system continually
increases.)
4. It provides no explanation for a large number of physical phenomena (including the
background radiation) that are directly connected with the evolution from diffuse
newly created matter to old receding galaxies.
5. Because of this lack of detail, it is untestable.
It is clear that the evidence in support of either of these theories is ridiculously
inadequate for verification. But because of the tendency to pass judgment on the basis
of the arguments against one or the other, which are strong in both cases, the recent
discovery of the background radiation ha tipped the balance in favor of the Big Bang.
The prevailing attitude in astronomical circles is described by Jay Pasachoff in these
words:
So at present almost all astronomers consider it settled that radiation has been detected
that could only have been produced in a big bang. 93
This is a particularly outrageous example of the This is the only way fallacy
discussed in
Chapter 3. It assumes first that since the background radiation has not been explained
in terms of the Steady State theory, it cannot be so explained. This is pure nonsense. It
should be obvious that no one is in a position to say what is impossible for an open
ended theory of this kind. There is still less justification for the assumption, likewise
implicit in the conclusion, that no other tenable cosmological theory is conceivable.

Some observers do see the weaknesses in the case for the Big Bang, and take a more
cautious stand, as in the following statements:
Even if this general picture (the Big Bang) seems consistent with what is known at the
moment, it would be rash to bet too heavily on it being correct, even in
outline.94 (Martin Rees)
No one acquainted with the contortions of theoretical astrophysicists in the attempt to
interpret the successive observations of the past few decades would exhibit great
confidence that the solution in favor of the hot big bang would be the final
pronouncement in cosmology.95 (Bernard Lovell)
In any event, the no other way argument is immediately and totally demolished
when, as in this case, the allegedly impossible alternative is actually produced.
Emphasizing the absurdity of the only way argument, it also turns out that the
alternative explanation of the background radiation supplied by the present
development was previously suggested by Fred H oyle as a means by which that
radiation could be accommodated within the Steady State theory. Hoyles suggestion,
admittedly ad hoc and given scant attention by his adversaries, was that the
background radiation comes from an unseen region of the universe. 96 This is
essentially the same conclusion reached deductively from factual premises in this
work.
The new factual information derived from the scalar motion investigation, and
reported in the preceding pages of this volume, now enables us to put together a
factual alternative to the existing unsatisfactory cosmological theories, a
new undersranding, we may call it, to distinguish it from a theory. Cosmological
questions have been in the realm of speculation and theory for so long a time that it
may be hard for many individuals (particularly astronomers) to believe that some of
the most significant of these issues can now be approached as matters of fact. Yet even
a casual consideration of the conclusions derived from purely factual premises in the
preceding pages will show that they go directly to the heart of major cosmological
issues. The Big Bang, for instance, is automatically ruled out by the finding that the
galactic recession originates from a different cause. Other facts disclosed by the scalar
motion study, and the necessary consequences of those facts, similarly serve as
guideposts by which we can trace the evolutionary path that the contents of the
universe actually follow. The path thus defined differs in many respects from the

course of events portrayed in presentday astronomical theory, but it is in full

agreement with the results of observation, as a purely factual development necessarily
must be.
Let us now review the principal factual findings that are pertinent to the cosmological
issues.
1. Because of the reciprocal relation between space and time in scalar motion, there is
an inverse sector of the universe in which motion takes place in time rather than in
space. All scalar motion phenomena in threedimensional space are thus duplicated in
the cosmic sector, the sector of motion in time.
2. There is a limiting size for galaxies, and at least some of those that reach this limit
explode, ejecting fragments, known as quasars, at speeds in the ultra high range,
between two and three times the speed of light.
3. When the retarding effect of gravitation is reduced enough by distance to bring
the net speed of a quasar above two units (twice the speed of light) the gravitational
effect inverts, and the constituents of the quasar are dispersed into threedimensional
time (the cosmic sector of the universe).
4. The effect of the explosion and its aftermath is to transform a cluantity of matter
from a state in which it is highly concentrated in space to a state in which it is widely
dispersed in time.
5. By reason of the reciprocal relation between space and time in scalar phenomena, it
follows that the inverse of the foregoing processes likewise take place, the net effect
of which is to transform a quantity of matter from a state in which it is highly
concentrated in time to a state in which it is widely dispersed in threedimensional
space.
We thus find that there is a constant inflow of widely dispersed matter into the
material sector from the cosmic sector. It seems rather obvious that this incoming
matter can be identified with the cosmic rays, but this identification is not necessary to
the development of thought in the subsequent pages. The essential point is that this
inflow of matter takes place in some dispersed form.

We have thus identified, on a purely factual basis, the initial state of matter in the
material sector of the universe, the sector accessible to observation. This matter
arrives in the form of basic units, which we can identify as atoms and subatomic
particles. We have similarly identified the final state of matter in the material sector as
highly concentrated spatially in massive galaxies. It follows that the essential process
in this sector, the process by which matter is brought from the initial state to the final
state, is a process of aggregation.
We know from observation that there are three such aggregation processes. Some of
the subatomic particles and primitive atoms combine to form larger atoms (atoms of
heavier elements). The dispersed material condenses into stars, incorporating
whatever heavy elements have formed up to the time of condensation. The stars then
aggregate into clusters and galaxies, while the other two processes continue. It will be
convenient to examine these processes in the reverse order.
According to our findings, the agency by means of which the aggregation takes place
is gravitation. On this basis, the evolutionary stage is indicated by the size of the
aggregate. It follows that the smallest selfsufficient stellar aggregate, the globular
cluster, is the initial product of the aggregation process, and the various types of
galaxies follow in the order of size.
Here we come into direct collision with current astronomical theory. The current
belief is that the galaxies were formed directly from the original material of the
universe in approximately their present form, and are all about the same age. Jastrow
and Thompson give us this explanation:
According to current ideas in astrophysics, the galaxies were born first in the universe,
and the stars within the galaxies were born afterward. The main reason for believing
this to be true is the fact that stars can be seen forming in galaxies at the present time,
out of gas and dust. If all the stars were formed first, and then were clustered together
later to form the galaxies, there would be no star formation going on today.97
Most astronomers are apparently convinced that stars are forming in certain locations
in the galaxies, as indicated in this statement, but, as many of them have pointed out,
there is no actual evidence to support this belief. I.S. Shklovskii, for instance,
characterizes the star formation problemas still in the realm of pure
speculation.98 Simon Mitton says that it is almost a total mystery. 99 And even if

there is some star formation in these locations in the galaxies, there certainly is no
evidence that this process accounts for all, or even any more than a small portion, of
the total star formation. Thus the conclusion expressed in the foregoing quotation is
no more than speculative.
The process of galaxy formation is even more speculative than the star formation
process. W. H. MeCrea points out that We do not yet know how to tackle the
problem.100 Laurie H. John gives us this assessment of the present situation:
The encyclopaedias and popular astronomical books are full of plausible tales of
condensation from vortices, turbulent gas clouds and the like, but the sad truth is that
we do not know how the galaxies came into being. 101
Two recent developments have eroded what little support the current ideas about
galaxy formation were able to claim at an earlier stage of observational knowledge.
First is the growing evidence of galactic cannibalism. M. J. Rees points out that the
prevailing ideas are inconsistent with the new information. One may not bejustified
in considering a galaxy as a selfcontained isolated system, he says, and cites some
of the evidence:
We can see many instances where galaxies seem to be colliding and merging with
each other, and in rich clusters such as Coma the large central galaxies may be
cannibalizing their smaller neighbors Maybe in a few billion years this fate will
affect our own Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy, transforming the local group
into a single amorphous elliptical galaxy. Many big galaxies particularly the so
called CD galaxies in the centres of clusters may indeed be the resu It of such
mergers. 102
The second discovery of recent years that has a bearing on this situation is the
abundance of small elliptical and irregular galaxies. Most observations of galaxies
have been made on the larger objects, because only the nearest of the small galaxies
are visible. The large number of additional dwarf galaxies discovered within the Local
Group quite recently, increasing the already high ratio of elliptical to spiral in the
region most accessible to observation, has emphasized the extent to which previous
conclusions have been shaped by this selection effect. It is now beginning to be
realized that, as noted in a 1980 news item, the dwarf ellipticals may be the most
common type of galaxy in the universe.103

The significance of the abundance of these dwarf galaxies, containing from a million
to perhaps 100 million stars of the same type as those in the globular clusters, is that it
closes the gap between galaxy and cluster. There is now no valid reason for regarding
these as two different classes of objects. We see that there is no absolutely sharp
cutoff distinguishing galaxies from globular clusters, 104 admits Harwit. The globular
cluster, too, is a galaxy; a galaxy, junior grade, we may say. Thus, these clusters are
the original stellar aggregates, from which the larger galaxies are formed by the
capture process.
In addition to fitting into the overall aggregation process of the material sector in a
natural and logical way, the identification of the globular clusters as the original
products of the star formation process carries with it the identification of the nature of
the process, the key element that has been lacking in previous attempts to explain the
origin of the stars. The description of the structure of the globular clusters in Chapter
6 is equally applicable to the precluster cloud of dust and gas. If we consider
successively larger spherical aggregates of dispersed matter, the particles of this
matter are subject to the same motions (forces) as the stars in the clusters. The
individual particles are moving outward away from each other by reason of the
progression of the natural reference system. Coincidentally they are moving inward
toward each other gravitationally, and also inward toward the center of the aggregate
under the gravitational influence of the aggregate as a whole. In the central regions of
this aggregate, the net motion is outward, but the gravitational effect on the outer
particles inereases with the radius of the sphere, and at some very large distance, the
inward and outward motions reach equality. Beyond this distance, the net motion is
inward. As in the star cluster, the resu It is an eyuilibrium between the inward motion
of the outer particles and the outward motion of the inner particles.
While the end result of this process is an equilibrium, not a condensation, the action
does not stop at this point. It was brought out in the preceding chapter that there is a
continuous inflow of matter from the cosmic sector of the universe. This matter is
dispersed throughout all of the space of the material sector, and the mass contained
within the equilibrium system is therefore slowly increased. This strengthens the
gravitational forces, and initiates a contraction of the aggregate. Once begun, the
contraction is selfreinforcing and it continues at an accelerating rate. Meanwhile,
some subsidiary concentrations of matter form within the aggregate, and since these
leave increasing amounts of vacant space, the original aggregate separates into a large

group of subaggregates. Eventually, the subaggregates become stars, and the

aggregate as a whole becomes a globular cluster.
This initial phase of the aggregation process is unobservable, and cannot be verified
directly. There is, however, an increasing amount of evidence indicating that very
large dust clouds are being pulled into the Galaxy. A rather obvious explanation of
these clouds (the only one that has appeared thus far) is that they are unconsolidated
globular clusters, aggregates of the kind that we have been discussing, that have been
captured before they have had time to complete the condensation process.
Condensation of the aggregates that escape this fate should produce a large population
of globular clusters scattered throughout intergalactic space. This is another
conclusion that cannot be verified observationally, as matters now stand, although
individual clusters have been located as far out as 500,000 light years. But if the
clusters are as plentiful as the foregoing conclusions would indicate, a substantial
number of them should be in the process of being pulled in to the galaxies.
Here we come within the observational range, and we find full agreement. The
number of globular clusters surrounding a galaxy is a funetion of the galactic mass, as
would be expected if the clusters were originally distributed somewhat uniformly in
the environment. There are a few clusters accompanying the small member of the
Local Group located in Fornax, two dozen or more in the Large Magellanic Cloud,
our own Milky Way galaxy has about 200, NGC 4594, the Sombrero, is reported to
have several hundred, while the number surrounding M 87, the giant of our
neighborhood, is estimated at from one to two thousand. These numbers of clusters
are definitely in the order of the galactic masses.
In all of the large galaxies, the clusters are located in symmetrical patterns similar to
the distribution around our own galaxy, which is a roughly spherical distribution
around the galactic center. These clusters do not participate, to any significant extent,
in the rotation of the galaxy. I nstead, as reported by Struve, they move much as
freely falling bodies attracted by the galactic center. 105 This isjust what they are,
according to our new findings.
Even though all of the available information as to the nature and properties of
the clustersis in agreement with this conclusion, it will be regarded by the astronomers
as outrageous, because it conflicts with their current beliefs as to the ages of

the stars of which the clusters are composed. The ironic feature of the situation is that
the astronomical evidence of age is fully in accord with the conclusion of this present
investigation that the stars of the globular clusters are the youngest of the observable
stars. But the astronomers reject the observational evidence from their own field in
order to accommodate their theories to an assumption that has been made by the
physicists.
This crucial assumption concerns the nature of the process by which energy is
generated in the stars. Although most of their assertions sound fully confident, the
physicists do not claim that they actually know what this process is. W hen they want
to be careful not to overstate their case, they say something like the following from an
article entitled The Energy of the Stars, by Robert E. Marshak, So we can safely
assume that the stars produce energy by the combination of light elements through the
collisions of their swiftly moving nuclei.106 No matter how safe an assumption may
be, it is still an assumption, not a fact, and it cannot legitimately be treated as an
incontestable fact in the way in which the astronomers are now using it.
The assumption seems safe to the physicists only because they see no alternative at
the moment. In itself, the assumption involves an extrapolation of the kind
characterized by Bridgman as perfectly hairraising. Even in a day when hair
raising extrapolations are somewhat commonplace, this one sets some kind of a
record. In view of the gigantic extrapolation that is required to pass from the relatively
insignificant temperatures and pressures that we deal with on earth to the immensely
greater magnitudes which we believe (also on the strength of extrapolation) exist in
the stellar interiors, even the thought that the answers thus obtained might be correct
calls for the exercise of no small amount of faith in the validity of theoretical
procedures. Any contention that the extrapolated results constitute firm knowledge is
simply preposterous.
Nevertheless, this safe assumption would certainly be acceptable on a tentative
basis (the highest status that can legitimately be accorded to any assumption), in spite
of its lack of tangible support, if it agreed with all of the relevant empirical
information from astronomical sources. But the truth is that in almost all cases where
a meaningful comparison can be made, this assumption conflicts with the
astronomical observations.

One very significant point is that the physicists process is not powerful enough to
meet the astronomers requirements. Even before the extremely energetic compact
objects were discovered, leading astronomers were asserting that a more powerful
source of energy must be assumed107 in order to account for the emission from the
blue giant stars. The recent discoveries have exacerbated the problem, as many of the
new objects are emitting energy at prodigious rates. W ith respect to one of these,
Jastrow and Thompson make this comment:
Pound for pound, the Seyfert galaxy may be emitting as much as one hundred times
more energy than our Galaxy. Even more so than in the case of M 82, this energy
release seems difficu It to explain in terms of nuclear reactions in stars. 87
If the energy of the stars is generated by the conversion of hydrogen to successively
heavier elements in accordance with the physicists hypothesis, the hot massive stars
at the upper end of the main sequence must be young, inasmuch as their supply of
hydrogen would yuickly be exhausted at the present rate of energy output. But this
conclusion that the most massive and energetic of all stars are young and shortlived
is an inherently improbable hypothesis, and the astronomers recognize this, even
though they are reluctant to implement their calls for a radical revision of the laws of
physics77 by challenging this particular conclusion reached by the physicists. It is
no small matter to accept as proven the conclusion that some of our most conspicuous
supergiants, like Rigel, were formed so very recently on the cosmic scale of time
measurement,108 X Bart J. Bok tells us.
There are good reasons for the skepticism revealed in this statement. As Bok evidently
realized, at least vaguely, the association of product with process in incongruous. No
one is suggesting that ordinary stars are products of catastrophic processes. Even
those who place the principal star formation in the early stages of a Big Bang universe
envision the stars as being produced by condensation of dust clouds. Furthermore, the
only dust clouds available for star formation in the current stage of the universe ( if
there ever were any earlier stages) are cold dust clouds. The initial product of
condensation must therefore be a cool star.
This point is conceded by those who have undertaken to develop the details of the star
formation process. These investigators realize that star formation is not a catastrophic
process. Such processes are destructive. They may produce some new combinations of
the previously existing basic units, but these are no more than fragments.

The general effect of such a process is to disintegrate whatever structure or structures

were involved in the event. Natural building processes, on the other hand, are slow
and gradual. In star formation, the dust cloud must first pass through a stage in which
it is some kind of a cool and diffuse protostar, and then gradually evolve into a stage
in which it has the characteristics of a normal star. The very nature of the production
of a hot massive star from a cool dust cloud thus requires it to be a slow cumulative
process extending over a long period of time.
The existence of a mass limit at which some or all stars undergo explosive processes
also argues strongly against the hypothesis that the massive stars are young. A limit
normally marks the end of a process, not the beginning. It implies the existence of a
previous process of addition of the limited yuantities, in this case, mass and
temperature. All of the foregoing considerations point in the same direction. They all
agree that the cool stars newly emerged from the protostar stage are young, and the
hot massive stars, together with other classes of stars that have reached equilibrium
states, are old.
The observed abundances of the heavier elements in the various classes of stars
likewise support the finding that the present views as to the stellar age sequence are
wrong. The present astronomical ideas based on the physicists energy generation
assumption lead to a situation in which old clusters of old stars are composed of
young (that is, unevolved) matter. This is clearly another inherently improbable
combination.
An ingenious theory has been devised by the astronomers to account for this strange
state of affairs. On the basis of the physicists hypothesis, the processes under way in
the central regions of the stars are atombuilding processes, and it is assumed that the
buildup continues far enough to produce heavy elements, or metals. According to
the theory, these metals are ejected into the environment in the supernova explosions,
enriching the metal content of the interstellar dust. It follows, so the theory goes, that
the stars formed early in the history of the universe, those of the globular clusters, for
example, were produced from matter of low metal content, whereas those formed
more recently, such as the stars of the galactic arms, were produced from matter of
relatively high metal content. Although this theory is the current orthodoxy, it is
conceded that there are some embarrassing conflicts with observations. For example,
Ivan R. King points out that

All the stars that we know, no matter how old, have some amount of heavy elements
in them. Where did these heavy atoms come from? 109
Also, some globular clusters conttain appreciable amounts of hot stars, a fact that is
very disturbing to supporters of current theories. Struve, for instance, called the
presence of these hot stars an apparent defiance of modern stellar evolutionary
theory.110 The same problem arises from the presence of unevolved, and therefore
presumably young, material in some clusters. Helen S. Hogg makes this comment in
an article in the Encyclopedia Brittanica:
Puzzling features in some globular clusters are dark lanes of nebulous materialit is
difficu It to explain the presence of distinct, separate masses of unformed material in
old systems. 111
Of course, the conclusion reached in the present investigation, which finds the
globular clusters to be young aggregates of young stars composed of young matter,
has the inverse task of accounting for the presence of old stars in these young
aggregates, but this is no problem, since the region of space in which the cluster
condenses from dispersed material inevitably contains some of the old stars of the low
speed components of the galactic explosion products, and these are gathered in during
the condensation process.
Some recent observations of the stars of the central regions of the Galaxy offer a
direct challenge to the prevailing belief as to the association of low metal content with
age. For example, a 1975 review article reports measurements indicating that the
dominant stellar population in the nuclear bulges of the Galaxy and M 31 consists of
old metalrich stars.112 As the author points out, this reverses previous ideas, the
ideas that are set forth in the textbooks. The term old metalrich stars is, in itself, a
direct contradiction of current theory. Harwit comments on this situation as follows:
There also seems to exist abundant evidence that the stars, at least in our Galaxy and
in M 31, have an increasingly great metal abundance as the center of the galaxy is
approached.104
Any systematic change in composition as the center of the galaxy is approached
favors the aggregation explanation of galaxy formation, which identifies the central

regions as the oldest part of the galaxy. The increasing metal content is thus correlated
with increasing age, as our findings indicate.
Observations that define the evolutionary pattern of the clusters produce some equally
conclusive evidence, not only of the validity of the reversed age seduence, but also of
the participation of the globular clusters in the aggregation, or cannibalism, process of
galaxy building. Globular clusters closer to the galactic center are found to be smaller
than those farther out. Studies indicate a difference of 30 percent between 10,000 and
25,000 parsecs.113 If the current explanation of the movement of the clusters in
elongated orbits were correct, the present distance from the galactic center would
have no significance, as a cluster could be anywhere in its orbit. The existence of a
systematic difference between the closer and more distant clusters shows that the
clusters are approaching the Galaxy, and are losing mass by reason of the differential
gravitational effect as they approach. This confirms the conclusion that they are on the
way to capture, and are not old features of the Galaxy, as viewed by presentday
astronomical theory.
During the time that these clusters are moving toward the Galaxy there is a systematic
inerease in the metal content. The farther a (globular) cluster star is from the center
of the galaxy, the more deficient it seems to be in heavy elements, 114 says Iben. Bok
and Bok elaborate on this point:
There seem to be rather marked differences in chemical composition between the
central group (of globular clusters) and the outlying clusters. The latter seem to be
generally metalpoor in their spectra, whereas metallic lines do show up more
prominently in the spectra of the clusters found close to the center of our Galaxy.115
There is another class of star clusters in the Galaxy, much smaller than the globular
clusters, and much more numerous, numbering as many as 40,000 by some estimates.
They are much closer to the galactic plane than the globular clusters, and can be
considered as being located in the Galaxy, rather than around it. These clusters,
the galactic, or open, clusters, are expanding at measureable rates, and can therefore
have only a relatively short life before their constituent stars merge with the general
background population. It follows that there must be some process in operation that
continually replenishes the supply.

The astronomers have been unable to find such a process. Like other members of the
human race, they are reluctant to admit that they are baffled, so the general tendency
at present is to assume that the open clusters must originate in the course of the star
formation process that is believed to be taking place in dense galactic dust clouds. But
this conclusion simply cannot stand up. If the cohesive forces in these clouds are
strong enough to form a cluster, they are certainly strong enough to maintain it. Those
who do face the issue therefore recognize that current theory has no satisfactory
answer to the problem. Bok and Bok, who discuss the question at some length,
conclude that at least some classes of clusters are not being replaced. The most
conspicuous clusters, the Pleiades, Hyades, etc., are disintegrating, and these authors
say there seem to be no others slated to take their place. Likewise they conclude that
the open clusters with stars of spectral type A and later may be a vanishing
species.116
In the context of the new understanding of the place of the globular clusters in the
evolutionary scheme described in this volume, there are no such difficulties. The
globular clusters that are approaching from all directions will ultimately fall into the
Galaxy, where they will be broken up into smaller units by the rotational forces. Bok
and Bok concede that one might be tempted to think about dismembered globular
clusters as possible Pleiadeslike clusters, but since this conflicts with the prevailing
ideas about stellar evolution, they dismiss this tempting thought as impossible. The
physicists assumption as to the nature of the energy production process must be
supported, whatever the cost.
As noted above, the open clusters are expanding at rates that are rapid enough to be
measured. Here, then, is one of the rare places in astronomy where the direction of
evolution can be unequivocally determined from direct observation. As the cluster
ages, the density decreases because of the expansion. Studies have been made of the
cluster density, and it has been found that the average open cluster currently classified
as old (example M 67) has a higher density, and is located higher above the
galactic plane, than the average open cluster currently classified as young (example
the double cluster in Perseus).117 Because of the expansion effect, we can identify
the clusters with the greater average density (the M 67 type) as the younger, and those
with the lower average density (the Perseus type) as the older. This is just the opposite
of the present official view, which, as has been pointed out, rests entirely on a

curiously unquestioning faith in the currently popular theory of the stellar energy
generation process.
Current astronomical theory regards all, or at least most, of these open clusters as
having originated in the spiral arms. The present locations of the M 67 class, well
away from the assumed place of origin therefore pose a problem. The following is an
example of the kind of explanation that is currently being offered for this anomaly:
Older (open) clusters, whose Main Sequence does not reach to the blue stars, show no
correlation with spiral arms because in the intervening years their motions have
carried them far from their place of birth. 118
These star clusters are not where we would expect to find them, on the basis of the
accepted theory of their origin, so it is simply assumed that they must have moved. A
systematic motion of an entire class of objects against the gravitational force gradient,
and not in the direction of the rotational forces a most improbable happening is
casually offered as something that we can accept without any question. Even in the
absence of the definite identification of the direction of evolution provided by the
relative densities of the expanding clusters, it should have been evident that the lack
of correlation with the spiral arms is a contradiction of accepted views that cannot
be resolved by an unsubstantiated assumption.
Our new findings as to the relative ages of the two classes of open clusters are in
agreement with the conclusions previously reached as to the relation of metal content
to age, and as to the origin of the open clusters from globular clusters that fall into the
Galaxy. M 67, now seen to be one of the youngest of these clusters, is one of the
highest above the galactic plane, indicating that it is still falling, as would be expected
if it is a fragment of a comparatively recent arrival. Furthermore, the HR diagram of
this cluster, which indicates its stellar composition, is almost identical with that of a
late type globular cluster, such as M 13, whereas the stars of the open clusters that are
now seen to be older, are mainly main sequence stars, comparable to the general
population in their environment.
There is now a consistent evolutionary pattern all the way from the most remote
globular cluster to the most advanced open cluster, a pattern that fits in comfortably
with the concept of continuous galactic aggregation that is required by our findings,
and is gradually making its way into astronomical thought as more and more evidence

of cannibalism is accumulated. The most distant globular clusters that are observed
are relatively large, and have a very small content of heavy elements (as little as 0.1
percent of the solar abundance, according to some estimates). 119 As the clusters are
pulled slowly in toward the Galaxy gravitationally, the atombuilding processes that
are under way in all matter inerease the proportion of heavy elements, while at the
same time the differential gravitational effects reduce the cluster mass. A more mature
cluster in the immediate vicinity of the Galaxy is thus smaller, but has increased its
metal content to a substantial fraction of the solar abundance.
Disruption of the cluster on entry into the galactic disk does not alter the composition,
and the clusters of the M 67 type therefore have essentially the same metal
abundances as the late type globular clusters. As the open clusters age, the metal
abundance continues to inerease, and the oldest of these clusters reach levels
comparable to those of the general field stars in the environment. As indicated earlier,
this is not the end of the atombuilding process. The still older stars in the central
regions of the Galaxy have a still greater metal content.
The factual information thus far available does not define the nature of the process by
which the heavier elements are bui It up, except that it requires this process to be one
that operates continuously throughout the existence of matter in the material sector.
This rules out processes such as the currently favored high temperature reactions in
the central regions of the stars, and it suggests some kind of a capture process.
Neutrons are readily absorbed under almost any conditions, and may play the
dominant role. For present purposes, however, all that we need to know is that such a
process exists, a fact that is demonstrated by the observed results.
The information presented in the foregoing pages should be more than sufficient to
show that the conclusion as to the nature of the aggregation process from subatomic
particle to giant galaxy that has been derived from factual premises is fully in accord
with the relevant facts disclosed by astronomical observation, even though it conflicts
with some of the beliefs that currently prevail in astronomical circles. The reciprocal
relation between space and time then assures us that the same kind of an aggregation
process is taking place in the cosmic sector of the universe. The largescale action of
the universe can thus be summarized in this manner:
Location

Process

Final State

3dimensional space

aggregation

concentrated in space

Intermediate region

ejection

dispersed in time

3dimensional time

aggregation

concentrated in time

Intermediate region

ejection

dispersed in space

Here in a nutshell is the cosmological understanding at which we arrive by developing

the necessary consequences of the new factual information uncovered in the course of
the scalar motion investigation. These results show that the largescale action of the
universe is cyclic. The final products of the major aggregation processes of the
material sector are ejected, pass through the intermediate, or transition, zone, and
enter the cosmic sector, where they become the primitive entities of that sector. The
final products of the major aggregation processes of the cosmic sector are similarly
ejected back into the material sector, and become the primitive entities of that sector.
This is a steady state universe, but unlike the universe contemplated by the theory that
goes by that name, it faces no problem in obtaining its raw material, or in disposing of
its end products. The raw material does not have to be created in defiance of the
conservation laws. It is continually being supplied from the inverse sector, and that
sector is constantly available to receive the processed material.. The new
understanding thus retains the desirable characteristics of the Steady State theory
without its disadvantages. At the same time, it provides the key feature of the Big
Bang theory, an explanation of the recession of the distant galaxies, and does so
directly from the inherent nature of scalar motion, eliminating the need for any
implausible ad hoc assumption such as the Big Bang.
We do not have the option of accepting or rejecting physical facts, or the necessary
and unavoidable consequences thereof, as we do conclusions based on theories or
assumptions. It is therefore superfluous to present a case in favor of the factual
understanding that has just been derived, but the redundancy involved in so doing
appears to be worthwhile as a means of emphasizing the difference between the
results of a factual development and those of theories based on speculative
assumptions. The points in favor of this new understanding can be summarized as
follows:

1. There is nothing ad hoc in this understanding, nor does it depend in any way on
theoretical premises. All conclusions have been derived from established facts and
their necessary conseyuences.
2. All of the points listed in favor of either of the two current theories are equally
applicable to the understanding described herein.
3. None of the points listed as objections to either of these current theories is
applicable to this new understanding.
Some comment probably needs to be made concerning item number 3 in the list of
objections to the Big Bang theory, which involves postulating phenomena on a scale
immensely greater than anything now known. It may perhaps be argued that the new
understanding is doing the same thing in asserting the existence of speeds much
greater than that of light. The answer to this is that this extension of the speed limit is
not an assumption. It comes from a newly discovered fact: the existence of scalar
motion in three dimensions. Since it is already known that speeds approaching the
speed of light can be attained in the one scalar dimension capable of representation in
the conventional spatial reference system, the factual finding that motion can take
place in three such dimensions automatically raises the limiting magnitude of the total
speed to three times the speed of light.
It is particularly significant that this new understanding is not subject to item number
5 in the list of objections to the Big Bang theory. It is a broadbased set of established
facts, and consequences thereof, that leads to many conclusions in many fields of
science, as indicated in the preceding pages of this volume. The broad scope of these
findings unites cosmology not only with astronomy, but also with physics, a nd
provides a host of opportunities for correlation with reliable data from observation.
Turning now to the objections that can be raised against the new understanding, we
find the following:
1. This understanding is new and unfamiliar.
2. It applies only to the physical universe, not necessarily to all existence.
3. It does not explain the origin and eventual fate of the universe. The first of these
objections can be overcome in time. Whether or not it will be possible to extend our

investigations into the areas to which the other two items refer is not indicated by the
facts developed in the scalar motion study. Invalidation of the view of space and time
as a container for all that exists leaves open the possibility that there may be
existences other than the physical universe, but the facts developed herein have
relevance only to that universe.
The more that has been learned about the physical universe, the more evident it has
become that we are learning only what it is and what it does. There is nothing in this
information to give us any clue as to how it originated, or, indeed, whether it had an
origin. As it appears in the light of the findings of the scalar motion investigation, the
physical universe is an existing, selfcontained, and selfperpetuating mechanism.
Perhaps it was created. Perhaps it may eventually be destroyed. But creation, if it took
place, must have been accomplished by agencies outside the physical universe itself
(as the advocates of creation contend). Likewise there can be no destruction unless
some outside agency intervenes. In the absence of such intervention, the physical
universe will continue operating indefinitely, without any significant change in its
largescale aspects.
References

1. Butterfield, Herbert, The Origins of Modern Science, Revised Edition, The Free Press, New
York, 1965, page 19.
2. Hulsizer and Lararus, The World of Physics, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Menlo Park,
Cal., 1977, page 2.
3. Physical Science Today, CRM Books, Del Mar, Cal., 1973, page 90.
4. Andrade, E.N. daC., An Approach to Modern Physics, G. Bell & Sons, London, 1960, page 10.
5. Gardner, Martin, The Ambidextrous Universe, Charles Scribners Sons, New York, 1979, page
200.
6. Feynman, Richard, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I, Addison-Wesley Publishing
Co., Reading, Mass., 1963, page 12-2.
7. Wightman, W.P.D., The Growth of Scientific Ideas, Yale University Press, 1953, page 102.
8. Einstein, Albert, Foreword to Conceprs of Space, by Max Jammer, Harvard University Press,
1954.
9. Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1938, page 185.
10. Ibid., page 158.
11. Einstein, Albert, Relativity, Henry Holt & Co., New York, 1921, page 74.
12. Walker, Marshall, The Nature of Scientific Though, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.,
1963, page 125.
13. Park, David, Conremporary Physics, Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, 1964, page 123.
14. Ibid., page 52.

15. Heisenberg, Werner, Philosophic Problems of Nuclear Science, Pantheon Books, New York,
1952, page 38.
16. Bridgman, P. W., Reflections of a Physicist, Second Edition, Philosophical Library, New York
1955, page 169.
17. Wooldridge, Dean E., The Machinery of Life, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1966, page
4.
18. Dicke, R. H., American Scientist, March 1959.
19. Science News, Jan. 31, 1970.
20. Von Laue, Max, Alben Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, edited by Paul A Schilpp, Tudor
Publishing Co., New York, 1951, page 517.
21. de Vaucouleurs, G., Science, Feb. 27, 1970.
22. Lindsay, R. B., Physics Today, Dec. 1967.
23. Einstein, Albert, Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, op. cit., page 21.
24. Feynman, Richard, op. cit., page 7-9.
25. Gerholm, Tor R., Physics and Man, The Bedminster Press, Totowa, N.J., 1967, page 135.
26. Bergmann, Peter G., Reviews of Modern Physics, Oct. 1961.
27. De Witt, Bryce, Science, Nov. 16, 1973.
28. Gerholm, Tor R., op. cit., pages 147, I51.
29. Lovell, Bernard, In the Center of Immensities, Harper & Row, New York, 1978, page 17.
30. Ibid., page 113.
31. Sciama, Dennis, Cosmology Now, Edited by Laurie John, Taplinger Publishing Co., New
York, 1976, pages 100, 101.
32. Feynman, Richard, The Character of Physical Law, MIT Press, 1967, page 30.
33. Robinson, F. N. H., Encyclopedia Brittanica, 15th Edition, Vol. 6, page 543.
34. Shapley, Harlow, Of Stars and Men, Beacon Press, Boston, 1958, page 63.
35. Black, Max, Critical Thinking, Second Edition, Prentice-Hall, New York, 1952, page 354.
36. Einstein and Infeld, op. cit., page 195.
37. Millikan, R. A., Time and Its Mysteries, Collier Books, New York, 1962, page 24.
38. Bronowski, J., The Common Sense of Science, Harvard University Press, 1953, page 74.
39. Millikan, R. A., Evolution in Science and Religion, Yale University Press, 1928, page 10.
40. Hoyle, Fred, From Stonehenge to Modern Cosmology, W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco,
1972, page 62.
41. Laporte, Otto, quoted in Heisenberg, Physics and Beyond, Harper & Row, New York, 1971,
page 30.
42. Dirac, P. A. M., Scientific American, May 1963.
43. Hanson, Norwood, Scientific Change, edited by A. C. Crombie, Basic Books, New York,
1963, page 492.
44. Lindemann, F. A., The Physical Significance of the Quantum Theory, The Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1932, page 14.
45. Einstein, Albert, Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, op. cit., page 67.
46. Heisenberg, Werner, Physics and Philosophy, Harper & Row, New York, 1958, page 129.

47. Bridgman, P. W., op. cit., page 186.

48. Shortley and Williams, Elements of Physics, Prentice-Hall, New York, 1955, page 830.
49. Jeans, James, Physics and Philosophy, The Macmillan Co., New York, 1945, page 190.
50. Whitehead, Alfred N., Science and the Modern World, New American Library, New York,
1948, page 48.
51. Reichenbach, Hans, Alberr Einseein: Philosopher-Scientist, op. cit., page 290.
52. Hesse, Mary B., Forces and Fields, Philosophical Library, New York, 1962, page 253.
53 Gdel, Kurt, Alben Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, op. cit., page 557.
54. Weaver, Warren, Science and Imagination, Basic Books, New York, 1967, page 50.
55. Ibid., page 99.
56.Northrop, F. S. C., The Logic of the Sciences and the Humanities, Meridian Books, New York
1959, page 61.
57 Ibid., page 37.
58 Einstein, Albert, The Structure of Scientific Thought, edited by Edward H. Madden,
Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1960, page 82.
59 Einstein, Albert, The World As I See It, Covici Friede, New York, 1934, page 91.
60 Feynman, Richard, The Character of Physical Law, op. cit., page 55.
61 Tolman, Richard C., The Theory of the Relativity of Motion, University of California Press,
1917, page 27.
62 Lindsay, R. B., Scientific Monthly, Oct. 1954.
63 Smith, Vincent E., Scienee and Philosophy, Bruce Publishing Co., Milwaukee, 1965, page 63.
64 Bohm, David, The Special Theory of Relativity, W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1965, page 172.
65 Verschuur, Gerrit, The Invisible Universe, Springer-Verlag. New York. 1974. page 138.
66 Dingle, Herbert, The Special Theory of Relativity, Third Edition, Methuen & Co., London,
1950, page 1.

67 Moller, C., The Theory of Relativity, The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1952, page 49.
68 Feynman, Richard, The Character of Physical Law, op. cit., page 97.
69 Heisenberg, Werner, Physics and Philosophy, op. cit., page 120.
70 Asimov, Isaac, The New Intelligent Mans Guide to Science, Basic Books, New York, 1965,
page 283.
71 Walker, Marshall, op. cit., page 54.
72 Einstein and lnfeld, op. cit., page 159.
73 Ford, K. W., Scientific American, Dec. 1963.
74 Verschuur, Gerrit, Starscapes, Little Brown & Co., Boston, 1977, page 173.
75 Rees, M. J., The Srate of the Universe, edited by Geoffrey Bath, Clarendon Press, Oxford,
1980. page 39.
76 Harwit, Martin, Astrophysical Concepts, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1973, page 9.
77 Hoyle, Fred, New Scientist, Oct. 17, 1968.
78 Lovell, Bernard, Cosmology Now, op. cit., page 7.
79 Mitton, Simon, Astronomy and Space, Vol.1, edited by Patrick Moore, Neale Watson
Academic Publishers, New York, 1972.
80 Ryle, Martin, Cosmology Now, op. cit., page 42.
81 Einstein, Albert, Relarivity, op. cit., page 126.
82 Lovell, Bernard, The Individual and rhe Universe. Oxford University Press, London, 1959,
page 78.
83 Hoyle, Fred, Galaxies, Nuclei, and Quasars, Harper & Row, New York, 1965, page 4.
84 Sciama, Dennis, Cosmology Now, op. cit., page 56.
85 Verschuur, Gerrit, Starscapes, op. cit., page 177.
86 Ibid., page 18l.

87 Jastrow and Thompson, Astronomy: Fundamentals and Frontiers, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 1972, page 226.
88 Mitton, Simon, 1973 Yearbook ot Astsooomy.
89 Ryle, Martin, Cosmology Now, op. cit., page 41.
90 Bohuski and Weedman, Astrophysical Journal, Aug. 1, 1979.
91 Bath, G. T., The Srare of rhe Universe. op. cit., page 12.
92 Verschuur, Gerrit, The Invisible Universe, op. cit., page 139.
93 Pasachoff, Jay, Asrronomy Now, W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, 1978, page 385.
94 Rees, M. J., Cosmology Now, op. cit., page 129.
95 Lovell, Bernard, Ibid, page 8.
96 See discussion in Verschuur, Starscapes op. cit., page 190,
97 Jastrow and Thompson, op. cit., page 207.
98 Shklovskii, I.S., Srars: Their Birth, Life and Death, W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco,
1978, page 66.
99 Mitton, Simon, Exploring the Galaxies, Charles Scribners Sons, New York, 1976, page 89.
100 McCrea, W. H., Cosmology Now, op. cit., page 94.
101 John, Laurie H., Ibid, page 85.
102 Rees, M. J., The State of rhe Universe, op. cit., page 35.
103 Hirshfeld, Alan, Sky and Telescope, April 1980.
104 Harwit, Martin, op. cit., page 43.
105 Struve, Otto, Sky and Telescope, July 1955.
106 Marshak, Robert E., The Scientific American Reader, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1953,
page 177.

107 Opik, E. J., Smithsonian Treasury of Science, Vol.1edited by Webster P. True, Simon &
Schuster, New York, 1960, page 38.
108 Bok, Bart J., The Asnonomers Universe, Cambridge University Press, 1958, page 91.
109 King, Ivan R., The Universe Unfolding. W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, 1976, page
464.
110 Struve, Otto, Sky and Telescope, June 1960.
111 Hogg, Helen S., Encyclopedia Brinanica, 15th Edition, Vol. 17, page 605.
112 Van den Bergh, Sidney, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 1975.
113 Lohmann, W. Zitschrift fr Astrophysik, Aug. 1953.
114 Iben, Icko, Jr., Scientific American, July 1970.
115 Bok and Bok, The Milky Way, 4th Edition, Harvard University Press, 1974, page I17.
116 Ibid., page 249.
117 Struve, Otto, Sky and Telescope, Apr. 1960.
118 Hogg, Helen S., op. cit., page 608.
Silk, Joseph, The Big Bang, W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, 1980, page 248.